The Change America Needed

TheThe ChangeChange AmericaAmerica NeededNeeded

Dora Gan, Year 11, Wu House

Often referred to as the “Second American Revolution, ” the Civil War was a turning point in the United States’ history. Its aftermath revealed systemic political, social and economic problems in the antebellum period, many of which failed to be resolved during Reconstruction due, in large measure, to disagreements between President Andrew Johnson and Congress.

In 1820, the Missouri Compromise split the nation along the latitude of 36° 30' , with slavery permitted in the south and prohibited in the north[1]. The Northern economy focused on manufacturing and industry, while the Southern economy was based on farming cotton and tobacco, dependent on the labour provided by black slaves[2]. However, as Senator William Seward of New York told his colleagues in 1858, the collision of interests between North and South was not “the work of interested or fanatical agitators” , but rather “an irrepressible conflict between opposing and enduring forces, and it means that the United States must and will sooner or later, become entirely a slaveholding nation or entirely a free-labour nation. ”[3]

The Republican Party was formed in 1854: a party based on the principle of opposing the extension of slavery to the western states as they joined the nation, with an ideology defined by competitive, egalitarian, free-labour capitalism[4][5][6]. When Republican Abraham Lincoln was elected president in 1860, seven southern states (South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas) concluded that their legislatures and economy were in peril, leading them to secede from the Union and establish the Confederate States of America at Montgomery, Alabama on February 1861 with Jefferson Davis as president[7]. With the first shot fired at Fort Sumter on April 12, 1861 by the Confederates, the fires of the Civil War were ignited and would continue to burn well beyond the war’s conclusion[8]. The war was essentially a stalemate for the first three years, even though the North had an advantage in terms of armaments, manpower and finance. Lincoln changed commanders six times; it was not until he appointed Ulysses Grant as Lieutenant General in the spring of 1864 that the North seized the upper hand. Finally, on April 9, 1865, Lee surrendered at Appomattox Courthouse, ending four years of brutal warfare that resulted in over 600,000 casualties.

If the American Revolution created the United States, the Civil War determined what type of nation it would remain. With the assassination of Lincoln on April 14, 1865, a stunned Vice President Andrew Johnson, known to many as the “dead dog of the White House, ” stepped into the Oval Office and inherited the task of reuniting the North and the South[9][10]. History would judge that he was ill-prepared to address the chaos and confusion of Reconstruction (1865 -1877)—much of which he would create in the first place.

Lincoln’s original blueprint for Reconstruction took form in the Ten-Percent Plan of 1863: if 10% of a southern state’s voters swore an Oath of Allegiance to the Union, that state would be readmitted with its Confederate generals receiving a full pardon[11]. A new state government and restructured state constitution would be put in place, officially accepting the abolition of slavery[12].

However, Johnson, a Tennessee Unionist and previously a slave owner, was more lenient towards the South with his plan, which included dispensing thousands of pardons to former Confederates[13]. He called for a loyalty oath less stringent than Lincoln’s and as long as Southern state governments abolished slavery, repudiated secession and abrogated the Confederate debt, they would be free to manage their affairs[14]. The Southern states also had to uphold the new Amendments to the Constitution: 13th (1865) that “neither slavery nor

involuntary servitude… shall exist within the United States”; the 14th (1868) that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges ... nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”; and the 15th (1870) that “the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. ” [15]

The Southern states conceded begrudgingly. Thus, operating on what was later known as the “separate but equal” doctrine, the Southern states established Black Codes and Jim Crow laws as early as 1865, just as the 13th Amendment was enacted. These Codes and laws enforced de jure segregation (segregation by law), which ensured white supremacy and an ongoing labour supply for their recovering, agricultural-based economies.

These laws not only defined everyday social protocols, with black people and white people using separate waiting rooms and ticket windows for trains in Alabama or different hospital entrances in Mississippi, but also sought to restrict jury selection and voting rights, undermining the 14th and 15th Amendments[16]. Black people were not allowed to serve on a jury and thus, many all-white juries sentenced Blacks, most of whom were either innocent or had committed a lesser offence, to harsh sentences. Although the Southern states could not legally prevent Blacks from exercising their right to vote, they introduced laws to limit those who could. For example, property tests were codified so only property owners could vote, and people who were property-less or illiterate (which was the case with most Blacks) were only allowed to vote if their grandfather had voted before as specified in the “Grandfather Clause. ”[17] Accordingly, many Blacks were automatically disenfranchised.

In an attempt to help the 4 million former slaves integrate into society and thus unite the country, Lincoln supported the founding of the Freedmen’s Bureau in March 1865 and authorised its operation for one year[18]. The Bureau aimed to provide food, housing, and medical care for black people and poor white southerners: it would go on to feed millions of people, build hospitals, provide medical aid, and negotiate labour contracts for black people before being disbanded in 1872[19]. However, the Bureau’s greatest achievements would be in education: building more than 1,000 black schools and being instrumental in the chartering of Atlanta University and Fisk University in the South. The Bureau intended to play a significant role in helping the country protect its newest citizens; predictably, it was met with significant resistance. First, it was underfunded and understaffed, with only 900 agents at its peak. Also, its representatives were targeted by the Ku Klux Klan, a white supremacist group that terrorised and lynched Blacks (and some white Republicans) with impunity[19]. However, the Bureau met its greatest resistance from President Johnson, who vetoed its continuation in February 1866. He argued that the Bureau interfered with states’ rights and would financially burden the federal government. His veto angered the radical Republicans in Congress - Republicans who held the South morally culpable for the war and wanted to punish them for it. A hostile tone had been set for the rest of his term as the Radicals believed he was being too lenient with the Southern states and had violated the terms of his office, leading to many future disagreements.

Economically, it was estimated that freeing the slaves resulted in a loss of almost $2 billion for Southern planters[20]. Lincoln had famously remarked that each freed slave would receive “forty acres and a mule” but Johnson reversed that order, returning all land to Confederate owners[21]. To secure a steady labour supply to work the cotton and tobacco crops, sharecropping was introduced in the South: former Black slaves agreed to work the land in return for a fraction of the crop they delivered. The Bureau was forced to oversee these sharecropping arrangements which were, by definition and intent, oppressive[22].

Regarding these post-war problems of Reconstruction, President Johnson said little, changed less and opposed more, as he was constantly vetoing bills initiated by the Radical Republicans. Lincoln’s stated objectives for going to war were to abolish slavery and to unite the country, but Johnson had been unable or unwilling to effectively follow this up. He had originally vetoed the Civil Rights Bill of 1866, which struck at the unfair Black Codes, vetoed the continuation of the Freedmen’s Bureau and opposed the 14th and 15th

Amendments. In doing so, he exercised his right to veto bills passed by Congress; however, once Congress overrode his vetoes, he failed to enforce laws Congress passed per his duty.

Even if Johnson opposed the Amendments, the Constitution still needed to be the basis of American democracy. As President of the United States, he had to uphold the basic values and rules set by the founding fathers. In not doing so, he faced the full wrath of Congress, which eventually led to his impeachment.

In the words of Representative William Kelley of Pennsylvania, “the bloody and untilled fields of the ten unreconstructed States, the unsheeted ghosts of the two thousand murdered negroes in Texas, cry...for the punishment of Andrew Johnson. ”[23] Johnson was eventually impeached in 1868 when he dismissed Edwin Stanton from the post of Secretary of War when Congress was not in session, violating the Tenure of Office Act passed in 1867. The ensuing trial in the Senate did not produce the 2/3 majority necessary to convict Johnson; it failed by one vote, 35-19.

Politically, not only did Johnson fail to undermine the Black Codes, he gave Southern states the freedom to implement them instead; socially, he vetoed the Freedmen’s Bureau even though it succeeded in helping those in need with the little resources it possessed; economically, he reversed Lincoln’s plan of forty acres and a mule. He might have chosen to encourage the Southern states to welcome and accept the Amendments; instead, he opposed them and sought control of Congress through lobbying representatives to support his decisions and vetoes. With his “Swing Around the Circle'' speeches for the Congressional elections of 1866, he attempted to win over moderate Republicans by saying “Congress, factious, domineering, tyrannical Congress has undertaken to poison the minds of the American people, and create a feeling against me in consequence of the manner in which I have distributed the public patronage. ”[24] In belittling Congress, he encouraged Southerners to resist the Amendments and other post-Civil War legislation. As a result, the Republicans increased their majorities in Congress and instituted legislation without Johnson’s support. Although the country was once again reunited in theory, the North and the South remained bitterly divided in practice. In essence, although Abraham Lincoln had won the war, Andrew Johnson had lost the peace.

The Civil War was pivotal in the nation’s bid to reinforce democracy and a sense of union. Reconstruction was meant to be a way of redirecting that democracy, and might have done so and provided a time of healing and national reconciliation had President Johnson and Congress not been at such odds. Nearly 150 years after the Civil War and Reconstruction, its fallout can still be felt by average Americans on a daily basis. Americans still seek to come to terms with the ongoing implications of a nation divided, de facto segregation would continue well into the 20th and 21st centuries, the Ku Klux Klan would create an ideological foundation leading to the emergence of white nationalist groups like the Proud Boys and securing equal justice at the state level and in the courtroom still risks being undermined by racial prejudice.

Johnson had failed to carry forward Lincoln’s vision and that of the Founding Fathers and failed to give the country the change it needed. Nevertheless, perhaps in current times, where the schism between the two political parties is significant and troubling, the lessons from the failures of Reconstruction will be ones worth revisiting and learning from for the United States to reach national unity.