Reconstruction

by Brooks D. Simpson

  The work of these state constitutional conventions and the governments they established represented significant change. Blacks and whites worked together to establish public schools, end discrimination in public facilities, and provide for individual rights. At the same time, however, the success of these conventions led many Republicans to believe that, armed with the ballot, blacks and their white allies could now defend themselves as well as shape their own futures, relieving the federal government of the need to use the military to protect and promote freedom in the South.

  Seeking to hamstring Johnson’s ability to oppose the implementation of its Reconstruction measures, Congress in March 1867 directed that orders issued by the president to military commanders had to be transmitted through Grant, the general-in-chief. It also passed the Tenure of Office Act, which required that the Senate concur in any presidential decision to remove civil officers appointed with Senate approval. The law deprived Johnson of the power to dismiss supporters of congressional initiatives (including cabinet members) from the executive branch, although supporters of the act were vague as to whether it also protected Lincoln appointees such as Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton, a Democrat-turned-Republican who often opposed the president’s policy.

  Despite these measures, Andrew Johnson did his best to obstruct the implementation of congressional Reconstruction. He removed its supporters from positions of authority, resisted enforcement of legislation, and waged a relentless attack upon Republicans. Notable was his suspension in August 1867 of Secretary Stanton from his cabinet post, with Grant taking over on an ad interim basis, as well as the transfer of several generals who favored Republican policies from their commands established through the Reconstruction Acts. Emboldened by the results of the 1867 elections, which suggested that a majority of northern voters were reluctant to embrace black suffrage in their own states, Johnson attempted to seize control of the War Department after Grant bowed to the Senate’s emphatic decision in January 1868 to restore Stanton to his position as secretary of war. Having earlier honored the letter if not the spirit of the Tenure of Office Act, Johnson now attempted to defy it by dismissing Stanton outright. Republicans in the House of Representatives saw their chance at last to muster a majority behind articles of impeachment. They did so on February 24, 1868.

  In May 1868 Johnson barely escaped conviction by a single vote in the United States Senate. His survival owed much to the decision of Republicans to regain control of the presidency through the traditional means of electing a candidate. Ulysses S. Grant’s overwhelming popularity made him an ideal choice: his declaration of “Let us have peace” was flexible enough to appeal to voters with differing views on Reconstruction. In nominating former New York governor Horatio Seymour, the Democrats appeared determined to refight the issues of the war and Reconstruction, an impression confirmed when vice presidential candidate Frank Blair lashed out at Grant and promised to roll back Republican initiatives. With all but three of the former Confederate states having been restored to representation in Congress, the fall contest witnessed the first time black voters cast ballots in a presidential contest in large numbers.

  SUFFRAGE FOR WOMEN:

  WEST VIRGINIA, APRIL 1866

  Maria F. Chandler to Thaddeus Stevens

  West Liberty, Ohio Co. West Va.

  April 1st 1866

  Mr. Thadeus Stephens, Pennsylvania

  I know that every patriot’s heart will thank the Giver of all good that now we have a Congress truly in unison with the sentiments expressed in the Declaration of Independence—a Congress in advance of all other Legislative Assemblies in the Nineteenth Century, and leading the Van of the Nations of the Earth in their progress toward Liberty, Justice and Equality.

  Oh! be watchful! be vigilant, distrust the enemies of your country although they may appear in the form of an angel of light. They will try all the arts invented in the bottomless-pit to circumvent you. Beware of receiving them with “open arms” when they make a feint of coming over to your side—for the instant the reins of power are in their hands, they will throw their promises to the winds—violate all moral obligations, and ride rough-shod over prostrate humanity.

  And now to pass to another subject—I thank you in the name of my sex for your advocacy of Woman Suffrage in Congress.

  “Keep back no syllable of fire. Plunge deep the rowels of thy speech.”

  For years has Woman stood beside the ballot-box in her own native grace, dignity, and modesty, ballot in hand—hopefully awaiting that recognition of her political equality, guaranteed by a Republican form of Government.

  Why is the Elective Franchise denied us? Will any sane person declare that we are “Not of sound mind”? If that is proved then never permit another female to attend the Public schools, close all the Female Seminaries, & Colleges—spend no more time, and money, in fruitless endeavor to educate idiots, or lunatics—but if female education is persisted in, do not insist on her occupation, with her cultivated talents, and enlarged mind, and capacities, the identical sphere and position, that her ancestors filled during the last age, or century.

  Another view of the case present itself here—how extremely absurd it appears in the light of reason, to allow men the Elective Franchise who can neither read, nor write, and withhold it from women of cultivated minds, and scholarly attainments.

  It is obvious that woman under a Republican Government like ours educated at the expense of the state, has in consequence of her wider scope of mind—added responsibilities and duties which she cannot innocently ignore. These avenues lead in public and political directions, and invite her footsteps. With increased responsibility comes the necessity of enlarged rights, and privileges, it is therefore plain and self-evident, that if you would not cramp and stultify the minds of women, if you would not crush their aspirations after more enlarged spheres of thought and extended usefulness the only alternative is to allow to become members of the Body Politic and extend to them the Elective Franchise.

  Very respectfully  M. F. Chandler.

  DEFINING RADICALISM:

  NEW YORK, APRIL 1866

  Harper’s Weekly:

  Radicalism and Conservatism

  IN EVERY political contest in a Constitutional system the names of Conservatism and Radicalism will be applied to the opposing policies, while the history of such governments shows that the policy which truly conserves the principle and spirit of a free system is that which is called Radicalism. In the conflict of opinion in England before our Revolution GEORGE III. and Dr. JOHNSON were the stiffest of Tory Conservatives, and saw in the doctrines and policy of EDMUND BURKE nothing but Radicalism and the overthrow of the monarchy. But BURKE was the true Conservative. His policy would have saved the empire upon its own principles.

  In this country at this moment both Radicalism and Conservatism, as the names of a policy of national reorganization, are very easily defined and comprehended. Thus Radicalism holds that the late rebel States should not be suffered to take part in the government of the Union which they have so zealously striven to destroy except after searching inquiry into their condition, and upon terms which shall prevent any advantage having been gained by rebellion. By the result of the war the suffrage of a voter in South Carolina weighs as much as the vote of two voters in New York. Is that a desirable state of things? Would any fair-minded voter in South Carolina claim that he ought to have a preference in the Union because, however honestly, he has rebelled against it? Radicalism, therefore, favors an equalization of representation as a condition precedent to the full recognition of the disturbed States, and every citizen of those States who sincerely desires national unity and peace will favor it also.

  Radicalism holds that equal civil rights before the law should be guaranteed by the United States to every citizen. It claims that the Government which commands the obedience of every citizen shall afford him protection, and that the freedom which the people of the United States have conferred the people of the United States shall
maintain. Is that a perilous claim? Is any other course consistent with national safety or honor?

  Once more: Radicalism asserts that, as the national welfare and permanent union can be established only upon justice, there should be no unreasonable political disfranchisement of any part of the people. It denies that complexion, or weight, or height are reasonable political qualifications, and it refers to the history of the country to show that they have not always been so regarded even in some of the late slave States, and remembers that both President JOHNSON and his predecessor were friends of impartial suffrage. Holding this faith, Radicalism urges that while we may honestly differ as to the wisest means of securing political equality, yet that all our efforts should constantly tend, with due respect for the proper and subordinate functions of the States in our constitutional system, to protect those equal rights of man with whose assertion our Government began, and in consequence of whose denial that Government has just escaped the most appalling fate.

  This is Radicalism. Is it unfair? Is it unconstitutional? Is it anarchical or revolutionary? It denies no man’s rights. It deprives no man of power or privilege. It claims for the National Government nothing which is not inseparable from the idea of such a Government. Does it demand any thing that every prudent and patriotic man ought not to be willing to concede? The views of Mr. THADDEUS STEVENS and of Mr. SUMNER, sincerely entertained and ingeniously defended as they are, are not the Radical policy. Mr. STEVENS holds that the disturbed States are conquered provinces in which the land should be confiscated, as that of Ireland has been three times over without giving Ireland peace. Does any body suppose that even the House, which respects Mr. STEVENS’S sturdy fidelity to his own convictions, agrees with him, or that the National Union party holds his view? Mr. SUMNER holds that equal suffrage should be required of the absent States as a condition of representation, and in a Radical Senate which passed the Civil Rights Bill over the veto by a vote of 33 to 15, Mr. SUMNER’S proposition obtained 8 votes. These gentlemen, of course, support the Radical policy, but they do not shape it. The opinions of the Union party are to be found, as President JOHNSON says, in the party platform. The policy of the Radicals is to be seen in the measures they adopt; and of the forty-two bills which at the time of the last veto they had presented to the President, he had signed forty.

  In our present political situation Conservatism is the policy which declares that the late rebel States are already in a condition to resume their full functions in the Union, and which denounces Congress for presuming to inquire whether that opinion is well founded. It denies to Congress—that is, to the representatives of the loyal people who have maintained the Government—the authority to look behind the credentials of any man who comes from a State still panting with rebellion, and ascertain the origin and validity of the authority that issued the credentials. It objects to the legislation of Congress while eleven States are unrepresented, without reference to the reason of their absence, thus virtually maintaining the monstrous proposition that a combination of States, by refusing to be represented, may prohibit national legislation. It denies that the United States ought to protect the equal civil rights of citizens before the law, and would admit the absent States to Congress before requiring their assent to an amendment equalizing representation. Conservatism is the policy which, forgetting that the United States are bound by every moral obligation to secure the freedom which they have conferred, apparently believes that that freedom will be best maintained and the national peace most truly established by leaving those of every color who were heroically faithful to the Government during the rebellion to the exclusive mercy of those who sought to destroy it.

  These are the distinctive points of the Conservative policy. Are they agreeable to an honorable and intelligent people? And of what is this policy conservative? If of the Constitution and Union, it will of course be earnestly supported by their true and tried friends. Is it so supported? Who are the present Conservatives? Who shout and sing and fire cannon and ring bells in jubilant exultation at every measure in supposed accordance with this policy? The reply is, unfortunately, unavoidable. The Conservative party, or the supporters of the policy we have described, is composed of the late rebels and of those who justified and palliated rebellion, with a few Republicans. And who oppose this policy? Who are the Radicals? The great multitude of those who believed in the war and supported it, whose children and brothers and friends lie buried in the battle-field in every rebel State, whose sentiments are now as they have been for five years expressed by the Union press of the country, and whose voice speaks in the vote of Union Legislatures and in the result of the spring elections.

  It is useless for Conservatism to claim that conciliation is essential to reorganization. Nobody denies it. But the cardinal question is, not what will please the late insurgents, but what will secure the Government. If it be said that the Government can not be secured by alienating its late enemies, the reply is, that it certainly can not be secured by alienating its unwavering friends. If conciliation contemplates the filling of national offices in the South by known rebels to the disregard and exclusion of Union men, thereby rewarding rebellion and discrediting loyalty—if it proposes to leave freemen of the United States to the Black Codes of Mississippi and Carolina, and to recognize the fatal spirit of caste which has been our curse—then conciliation is simply a name for ignominy, and Conservatism may see its fate in that of Secession.

  Radicalism has not a single vindictive feeling toward the late rebel States, but it does not propose to forget that there has been a rebellion. It has the sincerest wish, as it had the most undoubting expectation, of working with the President to secure for the country what the country has fairly won by the war, and that is, the equal right of every citizen before the law and the full resumption by the late insurgent States of their functions in the Union only upon such honorable and reasonable conditions as Congress might require. All reasonable men who support that policy will not lightly denounce those who differ with them. They will strive long for the harmony of those with whom during the war they have sympathized and acted. They will concede minor points of method, and bear patiently with impatient rhetoric leveled at themselves. But they will also bear steadily in mind the words of ANDREW JOHNSON when he accepted the nomination which has placed him where he is: “While society is in this disordered state and we are seeking security, let us fix the foundations of the Government on principles of eternal justice which will endure for all time.” The Radical policy was never more tersely expressed; and it will unquestionably be maintained, for it is founded in the plainest common sense and the profoundest conviction of the loyal American people.

  April 21, 1866

  “ACCEPT WHAT IS POSSIBLE”:

  WASHINGTON, D.C., MAY 1866

  Thaddeus Stevens:

  Speech in Congress on the Fourteenth Amendment

  Mr. STEVENS. The short time allowed by our resolution will suffice to introduce this debate. If unexpectedly there should be any objection to the proposed amendment to the Constitution I may ask the indulgence of the House to reply.

  The committee are not ignorant of the fact that there has been some impatience at the delay in making this report; that it existed to some extent in the country as well as among a few members of the House. It originated in the suggestions of faction, no doubt, but naturally spread until it infected some good men. This is not to be wondered at or complained of. Very few could be informed of the necessity for such delay. Beside, we are not all endowed with patience; some men are naturally restive, especially if they have active minds and deep convictions.

  But I beg gentlemen to consider the magnitude of the task which was imposed upon the committee. They were expected to suggest a plan for rebuilding a shattered nation—a nation which though not dissevered was yet shaken and riven by the gigantic and persistent efforts of six million able and ardent men; of bitter rebels striving through four years of bloody war. It cannot be denied that this terrible struggle
sprang from the vicious principles incorporated into the institutions of our country. Our fathers had been compelled to postpone the principles of their great Declaration, and wait for their full establishment till a more propitious time. That time ought to be present now. But the public mind has been educated in error for a century. How difficult in a day to unlearn it. In rebuilding, it is necessary to clear away the rotten and defective portions of the old foundations, and to sink deep and found the repaired edifice upon the firm foundation of eternal justice. If, perchance, the accumulated quicksands render it impossible to reach in every part so firm a basis, then it becomes our duty to drive deep and solid the substituted piles on which to build. It would not be wise to prevent the raising of the structure because some corner of it might be founded upon materials subject to the inevitable laws of mortal decay. It were better to shelter the household and trust to the advancing progress of a higher morality and a purer and more intelligent principle to underpin the defective corner.

  I would not for a moment inculcate the idea of surrendering a principle vital to justice. But if full justice could not be obtained at once I would not refuse to do what is possible. The commander of an army who should find his enemy intrenched on impregnable heights would act unwisely if he insisted on marching his troops full in the face of a destructive fire merely to show his courage. Would it not be better to flank the works and march round and round and besiege, and thus secure the surrender of the enemy, though it might cost time? The former course would show valor and folly; the latter moral and physical courage, as well as prudence and wisdom.

  This proposition is not all that the committee desired. It falls far short of my wishes, but it fulfills my hopes. I believe it is all that can be obtained in the present state of public opinion. Not only Congress but the several States are to be consulted. Upon a careful survey of the whole ground, we did not believe that nineteen of the loyal States could be induced to ratify any proposition more stringent than this. I say nineteen, for I utterly repudiate and scorn the idea that any State not acting in the Union is to be counted on the question of ratification. It is absurd to suppose that any more than three fourths of the States that propose the amendment are required to make it valid; that States not here are to be counted as present. Believing, then, that this is the best proposition that can be made effectual, I accept it. I shall not be driven by clamor or denunciation to throw away a great good because it is not perfect. I will take all I can get in the cause of humanity and leave it to be perfected by better men in better times. It may be that that time will not come while I am here to enjoy the glorious triumph; but that it will come is as certain as that there is a just God.