Constitutional rights given to africanamericans or as a failure because Racial Discrimination was legal and africanamericans remain unequal. So today, we are going to be talking about reconstruction. Right . So what is reconstruction . Its really the period immediately after the civil war. The period of reconstruction. Why is it called reconstruction . Because we are talking about the reconstruction of the union. Right . Of the seceded states that had formed the confederacy, theyre now defeated and the question then becomes is how do they reenter the union . How do we reconstruct the union . And that is why this period is known as reconstruction. It is not that well known in American History. As the civil war, so so far, we have been talking about the civil war, right, before the midterms, we covered the civil war. And everyone knows about the civil war. It has kind of a triumphant end. You know, at least if youre not a neoconfederate. The union wins. Slavery is destroyed. Reconstruction on the other hand does not have a happy ending. Its a great experiment in interrational democracy. Immediately after the war, but it is overthrown. And maybe we all like happy endings, and thats one of the reasons that we dont know that much about reconstruction. But it is really a crucial period in American History. Extremely crucial because many of our modern ideas about citizenship, what constitutes democracy, about equality, all comes from reconstruction. In a way, it is like the second founding of the American Republic. You have three constitutional amendments. You dont have that since the bill of rights, right . Thats just when the constitution is adopted. And the founding moment of the American Republic. So its a crucial period that, one, i think americans would, should be more aware of. Okay. So what are the issues of reconstruction that really are still pertinent today . Okay. Heres an image from harpers weekly. And it sort of personifies, i think, some of the central issues involved in this period of reconstructing the union. Some of the questions that had raises. So have a look at it. I dont know how clear it is for you. You may not be able to read all the writing. But here is clearly a freedman, he has, you know, something in his hand, a piece of paper. And on that you may not be able to read is written equal rights. Thats union army officer, the office of the u. S. Marshal that hes, you know, somewhat seems to be seeking protection, and there are a bunch of southern whites there with placards saying kkk, call home your troops. They want federal troops to leave the south, et cetera. Just looking at that image, can you think of what may have been some of the issues of reconstruction . Anyone . Ryan. Probably was the like need for federal troops to secure rights in the south because they feared that confederates would retake or take back and try to like force slavery almost back on the newly freedmen and in all but name. Excellent. Excellent. You know, thats exactly what i think the picture illustrates, right . That there may be a danger that once the federal troops leave that southern whites would want to go back to the way things were. So then what was the war fought about . That is a real danger. And the fact that the rights of black people are so connected with the presence of the federal government, of these troops in the south, tells you something about the issues of reconstruction. Black citizenship, you know, what would freedom mean for black people . They are no longer slaves. Are they going to be citizens . Are they going to be given equal rights . What is their status in the American Republic . The presence of the federal government, of the union army, the u. S. Marshals office there, quite clearly, we are getting a new sense of the nation state, of the federal government. Old ideas about federalism, which is the principle of dividing political power between the federal government and the state governments are going to be revisited, right . These states, they seceded from the union. What will the status of these rebel states now be . The federal government is sort of a symbol of the victorious union. How are they going to negotiate these rights again . Will the expansion of the National Government or the federal government as the face of the victorious union be connected to the issue of black rights . Clearly here, that seems to be the imagery. This is an image right from the middle of reconstruction. This is the issue that is being represented in the north. That the federal government is closely connected to this issue of black rights and that the issue of federalism does involve a renegotiation virtually or a reimagining of what is states rights. What are the powers of the federal government, renegotiation of that relationship. Why do you think states rights would be somewhat discredited now . Any ideas . The idea of states rights, the states have certain rights. Remember, who are the people who have evoked states rights before . And for what purpose . Before the war. Yeah, abbey. Wait for the mic. Make sure the mic is close to you so that everyone can hear your intelligent questions and responses. Maybe, i mean, before the civil war, it was southern planter politicians evoking states rights, but that was fundamentally to do with slavery. So some politicians like in the secession of south carolina, in their statement, they evoked states rights in terms of sovereignty between the states, but now the federal government has like won, that idea cant stand anymore because now theyre having toreintrodu reintroduc reintroduced. The federal government has precedent. Absolutely. Very good. Thats exactly why states rights is somewhat discredited, that idea. Because first, it had been used to defend slavery by Southern States. They didnt want the federal government to interfere with slavery, okay, and second, it was also used to secede from the union. The right of the state to secede from the union in order to protect slavery. So states rights is really a connected with the institution of slavery and with secession and civil war. Its somewhat of a discredited philosophy at this time. So these issues, of course, as i say, are the issues of reconstruction are something that is still with us. When i introduce the period to you, i said this is the period when you have far reaching federal laws being passed on civil rights, in fact, there are cases being fought in the Supreme Court today that evoke the laws of the reconstruction era. Far reaching amendments to the constitution. You may not have heard of the 14th amendment to the u. S. Constitution. But it has been so important in our times, right . The right to privacy, Marriage Equality, you know, roe v. Wade. All of those decisions that have been made that have been constantly expanding rights in the United States for different groups evoke the 14th amendment. So its really this moment in history that forms our modern notions of equality and citizenship and what democracy in america should look like. Right . And so yes, its extremely important period, but its also a contested period. You can see that in the picture. You can see the contestation there. Does the defeated south look or the defeated confederacy people who form that, does it look as if they have accepted defeat, at least in this northern representation . Is there going to be peace after the war . No. Right . This looks like a contestation. Why would the army even be needed in the south . Right . To protect black rights if there was not going to be contestation. This notion that there was no peace after the war, that somehow the issues that define the war were still being contested in the south is something that is really important to understand reconstruction. It is in fact one of the most contentious periods in American History. Jenson, and we can have the mic here. I also find interesting that Andrew Johnson was also very prostate rights when he was doing reconstruction. So it also made it hard to implement federal rights for reconstruction as well, like it also made it hard because the president during reconstruction wasnt really in favor of so much federal outreach and so much federal power. So its interesting too, i think. Excellent point. You know, Andrew Johnson presents a big problem for us. Hes a states rights democrat before the war. And because of an assassins bullet, he becomes president. Hes clearly not on board with the Republican Program of black rights. And he is clearly not onboard with this expansion of the federal government in order to insure black rights and insure the rule of law in the south. Hes not going to go with that. And that would create one of the biggest constitutional crises in American History. Its the first time that american president is brought up on articles of impeachment. And he, you know, but we are getting ahead of ourselves here. But im glad you brought up johnson because we will be talking about that today. So today in the lecture, were going to be talking about these issues raised up by reconstruction. Were going to talk about johnson and president reconstruction, and eventually how congress implements a program of reconstruction based on the idea of black citizenship. And comes close to impeaching Andrew Johnson. Now, this is, as i said, a very fraught period because of the contention taking place in the south, contention taking place in washington, d. C. Between the president and congress. Hes kind of disowned by hiown party in a way, but how have historians understood this period . Remember, we talked about the civil war and deferring interpretations. We talked about slavery and differing interpretations of slavery, and the same is true of reconstruction. Historians have interpreted this period in very different ways. And much of this is not in the reading that you have done for today, but it is in the introduction to the book, a short history of reconstruction, and some of it will be new. Some of it i add to that. Now, the historography of reconstruction was defined by what is known as the Dunning School, named as a Columbia University historian, and i have to apologize for my alma mater because this was a very pernicious construction of reconstruction put forward by william a. Dunning and john burgess, if you want the exact spellings of the name, it is in the introduction to the book. And a bunch of their students. And they basically said that this was like a terrible period in American History. Reconstruction was awful. Because of vindictive northern radical republicans forcing black rights onto the south. That it was a period of corruption. It was a period of misrule, incompetent, former slaves were suddenly given political power, and they wreaked havoc on the defeated south. So the sympathy is all with the south. Its a very racist view of that period. Because if you just read dunning and burgess, this kind of crude upfront racism that they have, you know, there are people relapsing into barbarism, people simply incompetent because theyre black people, because they are of african descent. This is a period of black supremacy. According to the Dunning School, giving equal rights to black people meant hurting southern whites. That we were somehow experimenting and that was just a failure. There was no achievement, really. Nothing redeeming about this period at all. And the pernicious thing, of course, is dunning and his students pretty much dominated reconstruction historyography, just like the mythology seemed to dominate interpretations of the civil war for a long time. About states rights, not about slavery. States right to do what . To defend slavery. So this kind of pernicious sort of interpretation was really dominant for a very, very long time. A few challenges started coming up with the rise of the Progressive School of historians. You remember the Progressive School of historians . The mcpherson article on the civil war that talked about the civil war was a second american revolution. This idea was first put forward by the Progressive School. They used it to talk about the triumph of the industrial north versus the agrarian south, and mcpherson and others show that in fact we can keep that idea of the revolution but what we cant do is see it as some sort of economic conflict between the north and south. The real conflict was over slavery. And the revolution was getting end of slavery, getting rid of slavery, right . So the Progressive School of historians said, oh, you know, this whole race talk, you know, that was not really the real issue of reconstruction. Just as they saw the civil war as the result of differing economic interests, they saw reconstruction and republicans as trying to enforce northern capitalism onto the south. That these were the they were also looking for the economic selfinterests of people. What was the real economic race is just a window dressing for the real economic interests of the north and south. You get a double dose. You have been reading, and rightly so, you read a short history of reconstruction, but did you manage to read that article on the radical republicans . What does he say . Does he say that radical republicans are really arguing about, you know, if you have your book handy, you can even go quickly, check it out. Are there agents of northern capitalism . Do they have a unified Economic Policy that they want to implement in the south . You can have the mic here. So he said that there wasnt really a unified Economic Policy in the Republican Party, and that reconstruction or rather black rights and moving reconstruction forward was really the main policy, much more so than Economic Policy and Economic Policy took a back burner, i guess. Absolutely. Very good. He says what unites northern republicans at this time is no Economic Policy. Some of them are now were hearing a lot of protection of tariffs again. Some are for tariffs, some are for free trade. They dont have any unified policy. The thing that unites them is a civic ideology of rights and citizenship that they want to make sure is extended to former slaves. Maybe the moderates want to go with civil rights. But thats the ideology that holds the Republican Party together, the way antislavery did before the civil war. If they had an Economic Policy, it was what they called free labor ideology or what he calls free labor ideology, that people should be treated as free labor. They should have certain rights in the marketplace. They should be paid wages for their work. They should be allowed to leave their employer to find better wages and better conditions in another place. That they should not be enslaved, basically. Right . And that ideology may be some kind of economic ideology, but in terms of implemented some kind of economic ideology on the south, as many progressive historians argue, into a sort of colonial status, was simply not what happened. Now, besides these two you can understand also why the Progressive School of historians said this, right . They, of course, were dominant during the progressive era. And if you think of your u. S. History survey, progressive era is the era trying to address the problems of the gilded age, of rapacious capitalism, theres conflict, strike, mass immigration. This is a time when the idea that government should regulate the economy, we should have clean food, clean air, clean water, child labor is not a great thing, those sorts of things come into being. That was the progressive reforms, that government has a role to play. And you can understand why the Progressive School of historians influenced by that kind of reform attitude at that time are talking about Economic Issues far more than the issue of the war, which was slavery and race and questions about rights. Theres one person who dissents against this view. Not the progressive view so much, maybe a little the progressive view, too, but who dissented the Dunning School, which remains the dominant view. By the way, the Dunning School, even though you have these challenges coming up, you know, in terms of popular culture, they are dominant. Theres a journalist who writes a book called a tragic era. And he basically recaps the Dunning School for a broader audience. There are the birth of a nation which is basically the Dunning School, the first hollywood classic, is about reconstruction. Right . Has anyone seen the birth of a nation . Yeah. You dont want to see it. Talk about the propaganda of history, right . What was insidious about the Dunning School was that its view percolated into the popular culture. Into film, the first hollywood classic, which premiered, by the way, in the white house. Because the first southerner elected after the civil war was woodrow wilson. And wilson was a southerner. He was a progressive on Economic Issues. But when it came to race, he was really retrograde. Not only did he premiere the birth of a nation which was all about black men being rapist and the ku klux klan is redeeming the south, and its just like pretty horrendous to watch, kind of painful, if you have the time, you can have a look at it. It caricatures the radicals, especially thaddeus stevens. Woodrow wilson, who is progressive mostly in Economic Policy and maybe to a certain extent in international relations, is really retrogressive, and it comes to race. He institutes segregation in washington, d. C. He fires all black federal government officers pause he doesnt want any black people in the federal government. He establishes the league of nations, of course, or helps establish it, even though its voted down by the u. S. Congress. But you know, he has this idea of national selfdetermination for everyone. And the moment people said, well, does this apply to asia and africa . Hes like, of course not, i meant only for europeans. When it comes to race, hes extremely, extremely retrogressive. But that is how pernicious the Dunning School was. It was in the white house. It was in hollywood. It was everywhere. That was the picture of reconstruction. That was dominant. And theres one dissenting voice here, and that is the famous black intellectual historian, activist, one of the founders of the naacp, w. E. B. Dubois. Dubois wrote a book called black reconstruction in america and the very title shows you that he wanted to center the role of africanamericans in this whole drama about reconstruction. Read the subtitle, right . An essay to what a history of the part which black folk played in the attempt to reconstruct democracy in america. From 1860 to 1880. From the civil war to well after reconstruction is over in 1880. He published this in 1935. And hes not only centered africanamericans in this story, hes saying this is not just a matter of reconstructing the union. Its a matter of reconstructing american democracy. Its value, its ideals. And when black people are demanding citizenship and equal rights, theyre imagining the interracial democracy that we live in today. So were really coming up with a whole new conception of american democracy, and it is very contested in the 19th century and continues to be contested until today. You know, who is an american citizen . Should people have equal rights . You would imagine that these questions were settled with the civil war. But in fact, theyre extremely contested in the period after the war and afterwards. Hes saying in demanding equality, black people are helping to reconstruct american democracy. That was his idea. But more importantly, dubois at the end of this mammoth book that he writes about reconstruction has a chapter called the propaganda of history. Where he really takes the Dunning School to task. He literally quotes them. And the extremely racist views about black people. And the fact that they literally drove, you know, they wrote bad history. They just wrote what southerners had said about reconstruction and pretty much reproduced that. And he actually has a wonderful quote that im going to read out to you. He says in his book in this chapter in the propaganda of history, the magnificent figures of charles summoner and thaddeus stevens, these were the radicals. You read thaddeus stevens, right . Have been bespirmirched beyond recognition. Theyre portrayed as these vindictive people. We have been cajoling and flattering the south and slurring the north because the south is determines to rewrite history. And the north is not interested in history. But in wealth. Here hes condemning the Republican Partys abandonment of the reconstruction project, its conversion from the party of antislavery to the party of big business during the gilded age. A flood of appeal from the white south reenforced this reaction. Appeal would no longer the arrogant bluster of slave oligarchy, but the simple moving annals of the plight of a conquered people. Thats how the birth of a nation, dunning, these were defeated people and we were just mean, vin dikvictive, and revengeful to them. The rebound of the nation made it nearly inconceivable in 1876 at the end of reconstruction that ten years earlier, most men believed in human equality. Right . So theres a real indictment of the historical profession, and the way in which historians had written about reconstruction. Dubois book was not even reviewed in the american Historical Review, which is like the leading journal of our profession, but he had the last laugh, because guess what, in the 1960s during the civil rights era, his view of reconstruction became dominant. People saw the Dunning School for what it was. This is also after the Second World War when racism is intellectually and politically, at least, unfashionable. Naziism has made racism suspect, and race, ideas about race suspect. The american historical profession as a whole is sort of reckoning with reconstruction in different ways. And many people who write in the 60s, like black and white historians, kenneth stam, john hope franklin, they all write or resurrect dubois views of reconstruction. Its also interesting that it is really in a 1940 essay that harvard k. Beal writing an essay on reconstruction in the american Historical Review praises dubois. He criticizes him, but he praises his view as going beyond, you know, the ways in which the Dunning School had written about reconstruction. Where he said sectional animosity still animated it. Now, this view of dubois, i mean, in a way, his intellectual heir is eric foner, and he wrote his opus in the 1980s. Youre reading an abridged version of this magnum opus which read as a manuscript when i was his graduate student at columbia. Whats interesting about foner is he updates dubois for our times to an extent. Youre reading all his view of reconstruction, really, thats the standard view now in American History of reconstruction. He sees africanamericans as central players in the drama of reconstruction. But he also looks at the expansion of the nation state, of the constitutional and political crises that take place. The fights over the meanings of freedom. You remember that chapter you read about the meanings of freedom and how former slaves thought about freedom. Does anyone want to take a stab at that . Any ideas about how foner talks about how freedom is being contested during this time . That that is the central issue really, black freedom after reconstruction . You remember how he talks about black people reconstructing their families, their marriages, their communities, their churches . But also thinking about economic independence, et cetera. Abbey. In terms of like africanamericans, is it because they had lost so much during slavery, one of their foner talks about how they try to establish families, as you said, by looking for their own families and legalizing their marriages, so like their personal freedoms became very political because things which they werent able to do now became things which were regarded as like foundations for freedom and how they could engage in their own freedom, even if it didnt seem like they were doing much to the white dominant society. Absolutely. Really good point. These are what we could consider basic civil rights, the ability to have a family, to get married to someone. You think about the whole debate of Marriage Equality, something you probably grew up with. Thats a basic civil right that many gay people demanded. They said, you know, we should not be stigmatized for who we are. We need this basic civil right. And on the basis of the 14th amendment, indeed, Marriage Equality was proclaimed. Thats exactly in a way what former slaves are contending for, their basic civil rights. Their basic security as citizens in this country, and most importantly, for foner, their political rights. Theyre looking for economic independence, et cetera, and well talk more about the contestation over land and labor and the reconstruction south, but political rights, this is the origins of what he calls black politics. Black people want politicized, whether its the politicization of everyday life, as he calls it. Theyre not willing to act as slaves. Meaning the idea that black people should move out of the smock when a white person passes by, and this would lead to fights, violent fights in the south, after the civil war. Or the idea that they should be deferential and cowering as if they were slaves was something that racial etiquette no longer applied, and black people were quick to assert their rights as citizens. To demand access to schools, to demand access to the ballot box, to demand access to public accommodations. Things that had been completely they had been deprive offend. This is why freedom is contested in the south, because everyone is trying to define what rights do black people have now. What kinds of freedoms do they have . And this is exactly the point of contestation. So even though foner called it an unfinished revolution, unfinishes because reconstruction is overthrown and it would take 100 years for these acts and amendments that are passed in the 1860s to be implemented in america through another great mass social movement, the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s. So you can see that it takes a very long time to even implement these rights, and thats why its so radical. You know, its radical because in the 19th century, people arent really talking about black equality, yet that is the topic. And it takes so long for these very basic rights of black citizenship to be implemented in this country. Now, besides this synthesis that eric foner has done of reconstruction, there have been other historians writing about reconstruction. In the 1970s and 80s, there were a number of people who in the aftermath of the Civil Rights Movement say reconstruction wasnt radical enough, it didnt go far enough. Land wasnt redistributed. People were constrained by the u. S. Constitution. The federal government could not exercise its powers to the extent that was needed because of the constraints of states rights ideas and federalism, of divided government, et cetera. There are all kinds of ways to say this period was not radical, but in fact, the people who lived through it, former slaves, confederates, northerners, felt it was terribly radical. They all write about living in revolutionary time. Where changes are coming so fast and so quick and the country has to sort of keep up with it. Now, in the aftermath of foners reconstruction, there have been current reevaluations. Articles have come out on writing the freedom narrative. Books have come out, beyond freedom, saying, you know, this was a period that was also disappointing. That there were a lot of failures, that we need to look at other things. That this kind of linear narrative of slavery to freedom and progress, you know, doesnt really work. And we have to look at all kinds of other problems during the reconstruction period. People talk about, you know, how the plains indians are dispossessed immediately after reconstruction. How the indian wars are being fought in the west, how america emerges as an imperial power, you know, the war in the philippines, et cetera. The putting down of philippine independence. This is not as radical as we thought. But these reevaluations many times, you know, they come with a long reconstruction framework, meaning they dont just sometimes look at the period of reconstruction. They look at the period well after reconstruction. They look at issues that did not really have much to do with the kinds of issues we have been talking about, black rights, citizenship, et cetera. Well, maybe the expansion of the nation state. American nation state grew so big and powerful that it could become imperial. Thats another popular way of looking at it now. But, of course, none of these ideas have really replaced foners book. No alternati tativ tative synth there for reconstruction. It still remains the Gold Standard in reconstruction torography. Lets talk more about the specific issues of the period. Jansen referred to Andrew Johnson. Andrew johnson created one of the First Political crises of reconstruction. The first constitutional crises of reconstruction. You know, lincoln is often seen as, you know, the greatest president of the United States. I think he and washington go up there, but lincoln usually always gets whenever they have these rankings, and its an irony of history that lincoln was preceded by a president who is always ranked at the bottom, james buchanan, and then succeeded by a president who always belongs at the bottom, too, Andrew Johnson. Now, Andrew Johnson, you know, when he was put on the president ial ticket of the Republican Party in 1864, this was the election the Lincoln Party was going tluo lose after the emancipation proclamation. The idea was you would have a unity ticket, you would have a southerner on the ticket. And it was clear by 1864, the south was going tlo lose. At least most people think these are the dying embers of federalist resistance, and johnson is put he replaces Hannibal Hamlin of maine as lincolns Vice President because he was a senator from tennessee, and he was such a staunch unionist that when his state seceded from the union, he refuses to leave the senate. All other congressmen left. Johnson is the only one who didnt leave. Hes an unconditional unionist. Hes staunch. He says no, ill stick with the union. When the union actually occupies tennessee, he becomes the wartime governor of tennessee. He is from nonslave holding origins. Very humble origins even though he owns slaves, a few slaves. Hes seen as somebody who is even more rags to riches than lincoln because he represents this kind of poor whites, the nonslave Holding Rights of eastern tennessee, many of whom were staunch unionists at that time. And they were it was a predominantly nonslave holding era. We talked about plantation belt and nonplantation belt. Here we have johnson. Right . Hes a man seen as a staunch unionist. He goes around saying ill make treason odious. People think hes going to be hard on the southern susectie n secessioni secessionists. He says things to black people like ill be your moses. Lincoln never said that. Right . Ill be your moses. Ill lead you to freedom. They think hes going to be for black rights and black freedom. But johnson is a huge disappointment. Hes a staunch states rights democrat, really. He was never really part of the Republican Party. Joins the Republican Party during the civil war, but his states right democratic roots are very strong. And hes very reluctant to use federal power to enforce black rights, certainly. Or to have any federal part in the reconstruction of the south. Whats interesting about johnson, of course, is hes a staunch racist. And this comes out during his presidency. He cannot even contemplate about black people as equals. Hes southern. Hes white. He hates the planter class. Because hes a poor southern white. But he hates black people even more. And during reconstruction when you look at the policies of his president ial reconstruction, you can see this. He at one point even meets a delegation led by Frederick Douglass, who remember, has met lincoln, has been received politely by lincoln. Johnson meets him, and he calls him the darky delegation, right . When they leave, his secretary recalls this nowadays we have hot mics that kaecatch people s you know, politicians sometimes are caught saying things that are really crude and awful. Sometimes they just say it openly, but his secretary recorded this. And johnson said about this black delegation that had come to plead with him for black rights, the right to vote, et cetera, led by the great Frederick Douglass, these are his exact words and i pardon my french because hes a pretty crude guy. One of the crudest american president s, actually. He says those damn sons of bitches thought they had me in a druth. I know that damned douglass, hesjure just like any, quote, nigger, and he would sooner cut a white mans throat than not. This is the president of the United States talking about a black delegation headed by Frederick Douglass coming to him. Rarely have we seen president s talk in that manner, right . And so his racism is acute. And johnson very quickly, he has this sort of amnesty proclamations where he, you know, the moment he comes to power, one republican says this is rich for a man who has been made president by an assassins bullet to be so arrogant. Congress is not in session. He issues these proclamations saying Southern States can reenter the union. That as long as they accept that, you know, they are against secession, they accept that slavery is dead, and they repudiate, this is something put in later, they repudiate the federal debt, they can reenter the union. No conditions put on them, no conditions for black right, civil rights. They can just come in to the union. Its a very lenient policy, right . And absolutely no conditions put on southerners. Theres this myth that johnson is simply continuing lincolns policy of president ial election. In fact, there were plans of wartime reconstruction that lincoln had put forward. If his famous 10 plan, and this was just a wartime measure for those areas conquered by the uni, particularly louisiana, i he said if just 10 of the population is loyal, they can reenter the union. There were hardly any conditions for black and civil rights, and radicals in congress were upset about that and they had their own bill called the wig davis bill when they said is going to give black people some civil rights. But even they didnt give black men the right to vote, and lincoln simply pocket vetoed that. That doesnt mean lincoln was opposed to black rights. Remember his last speeches . It is in support of black rights. He writes a letter to the governor of louisiana saying consider giving the right to vote to those who are very intelligent, those who have served in the union army, those who are educated. Hes clearly a person who is moving towards black rights. Johnson never does. In fact, he digs into his position that this is just simply an impossibility. Right . The other way that lincoln is different is that he is a party leader. He emerges from the Republican Party, and he leads the party very successfully through the war, and in the last year of the war, he works with republicans in congress to achieve quite a bit. The most important actually was the passage of the friedmans bureau bill in 1865. This is a federal Government Agency. This is what southerners said, this is a federal government being overreaching, right . This is a federal Government Agency. Its official name is bureau of refugees, freedmen, and abandoned lands. It would oversee the transition from slavery to freedom in the south. And it was there not just to protect the rights of freed people, but it was actually giving food and shelter and sometimes opening up its hospitals and sometimes schools, too, even to southern whites. Right . But it was portrayed as this awful overreach by most southerners, by most southern whites as this overreach of the government that was only helping black people. Actually, they were doing a whole lot of things and they ended up being identified mainly with the freed people, called the Freedmens Bureau. What diz this picture show you . This is a contemporary picture of the Freedmens Bureau. Its in a short history of reconstruction, too. It has two views of the Freedmens Bureau. What does this tell you . Hes a man, hes in a uniform. He could be a Freedmens Bureau agent or a union army person they relied on. What does this tell you about the role of the Freedmens Bureau in the post civil war south . Any takers . Ryan. Sorry, tasha. Ill let tasha go first because she hasnt spoken first. Go ahead. Theres the mic. Kind of that it was trying to, like, halt the division between the blacks and whites, like keep the peace for the most part. Just because there was no other federal agency, and obviously, johnson wasnt doing the job. Absolutely. Very good point. Of course, this time, johnson has not yet been elected, but yes. This is the idea that the Freedmens Bureau would act like an arbiter, even, between, you know, southern whites and black people demanding their rights. Right . That it would be like this impartial, neutral agency. But it was not viewed that way. For black people, it became an alternate source of authority. If your former master or your, you know, local state authorities abused you, whipped you, and hundreds of instances of complaints coming to the Freedmens Bureau. Peoples children being whipped, them being whipped, denied wages, et cetera. You could appeal. You could appeal to the Freedmens Bureau. Right . It was the first social Welfare Agency formed by the United States government. Right . It literally was going to go down south. It had hundreds of agents. Sometimes the agents were pretty racist and took the side of whites even, but as a whole, the Freedmens Bureau was an alternative source of authority, and southern whites hated it. They hated people intervening in their, quote, domestic affairs. In the way that they wanted to run their states. Despite being, of course, defeated in the civil war. Blacks welcomed it. Dubois wrote essays on the Freedmens Bureau, showing how important it had been for africanamericans to be able to appeal to the government to protect their rights. So Freedmens Bureau really became identified with black rights in the south because they helped implement fair wage contracts, et cetera, also while they were still there. Now, what happens, of course, is that lincoln cooperates with the republicans to pass the Freedmens Bureau bill in 1865. This is the First Step Towards reconstruction. So in terms of lincolns plans are reconstruction, well never know because he was killed. But he actually, you know, helps form this agency, works with republicans in congress to do this. The second thing that he works with congress on, does anyone know . Does anyone remember that . Its the first reconstruction amendment. Does anyone remember what that amendment was . Ryan . The 13th amendment, right, the one abolishing slavery . Absolutely. He works with congress to abolish slavery. The 13th amendment to the constitution in 1865, that people should be that slavery shouldnt exist in this country except if you were actually duly convicted in a court of law. The second section of this amendment is really important. It says that Congress Shall have the power to enforce this amendment. So clearly, the 13th amendment saying congress should be deciding on how to implement black freedom. They should pass laws in congress to implement this. What does johnson think . Uhuh. Johnsons not buying this. Hes a states rights guy, as jansen says. He does not think congress should have anything to do with reconstruction. Hes disbanded black Union Army Troops, hes issuing his plan for reconstruction, for instance. Penalizes the planter class. As a poor white, he resents slave owner planters. He said anyone owning more than 20,000 of property shall not be pardoned. Ill grant amnesty and pardon to other whites. But what happens . These people, representatives of the planter class, come to johnson, and he issues wholesale pardons to them, 14,000 people. He just pardons immediately. What happens with, you know, the new governments being formed in the south . Under johnsons plan . Not many of them were secessionists, but theyre kind of discredited. They were unionists and i put that in quotes because these unionists had opposed the secession of their states, but they had all gone with their state and many had fought for the confederacy and occupied high office in the confederacy. The most important was alexander stevens, the Vice President of the confederacy. Soez the state governments formed in the south are full of these former confederates. Some still wearing their Confederate Army uniforms as generals. Theyre sending these same guys back to congress and to johnsons plan. Alexander stevens is elected senator from georgia. Anyone, that notion of vin ti d vindictive and harsh republic republicans, in any other country, they would be jailed, and some were jailed for crimes committed against the United States government. Jefferson davis was jailed for some time, but none of them really suffered. Jefferson davis writes this huge memoir after hes released saying it was all about states rights, nothing to do with slavery, the civil war. Theyre all there to propagate their own views and theyre really not punished that harsh. Did you have a question . Jeremy. And then ill come to you, ryan. Yeah, the 13th amendment, like, originally stated there shall be no slavery except as a punishment for crime. So how significant do you think that played for, like, the souths part as far as like enforcing the black codes and that type of thing . Yeah, very good question, jeremy. Were going to be talking about black codes, right . Southerners use all kinds of legal and constitutional loopholes besides violence, like plain out violence, to undermine reconstruction and the project for black rights. So you know, people use criminality, this is when they start convicted black people for minor crimes. And then using them as convict labor. So you know, there are theories about mass incarceration. This is where it all starts. Actually, the formers or the people who wrote this 13th amendment, did not have that in mind at all. Right . This is just a common english exception to any rights and privileges given, meaning i can, if youre duly convicted of a crime, you can be imprisoned. Your rights can be taken away from your temporarily. Thats a common sort of exception. The black codes is not coming out so much from the 13th amendment. These are codes, and im going to be talking about this. Im going to be talking about this under johnsons plan, because these state governments that are dominated by unionists, but all who went with their states, all end up implementing these black codes, which causes a real problem. So im going to be talking about that very shortly. Ryan, you had a question, quickly, right . I think the politics of johnson are very interesting, but im kind of confused in his motives. So before during the war, hes so harsh on treaties and so angry against the secessionists. Then following the war, he seems to ally himself with them. Would you say thats more because he wanted their support in his reelection and he was more power hungry . Because he seems to change his politics even. You know, in shifting to a lot less harsh. But would you say thats more because hes power hungry and wants to be reelected or because he had those views and couldnt express them during the war . Thats a good question, you know, clearly, he does try to form a separate party because his party basically disowns him. The republicans are like, my god, as he starts implementing his policies, they realize hes going against everything that not just the Republican Party, that the north was standing for. He tries to form a union party with democrats and conservative republicans, and he plays the race card. He thinks he can unite northern whites and southerners on the race card. But guess what . This time it doesnt work. And so maybe part of it is that. But part of it is also that johnson was a unionist, right . He thought the union should be upheld. But his vision of the union never included black rights. He was now an antislavery guy. He was from the south. So he was for the union, and there were a lot of people like that, northern democrats like that, who were for the union, didnt want anything to do with black rights. So you know, johnson, his racism is what really impels him. You will see this in his actions. And this is the failure of johnsonian reconstruction. He is not a continuation of lincoln. People said, oh, president ial and congressional reconstruction. Yes, there was a conflict of interests involved between the president of the United States and the congress, who will control reconstruction. But lincoln worked with the congress, right . He worked with his party, with the Republican Party. Johnson was really a man without a party. And he does these things like he revokes these land grants that have been made by the Freedmens Bureau, and remember the field order number 15, all the abandoned lands they had had freed people settle on, shermans 40 acres and a mule, all that land, he takes that and gives it back to the planters. Southern whites are complaining they dont want black soldiers. They dont want black Union Army Troops around. He disbands them or theyre sent out west. He is clearly working on his own plan for reconstruction. Congress, when it reconvenes, and these are the things hes doing, his proclamations come pretty soon after lincolns death in may, 1865. Congress, when it reconvenes in december 1865 forms this joint committee on reconstruction, joint committee of the house and senate to decide what to do with reconstruction. They hear testimony in the the testimony of violence in the south, of contention in the south, from freed people, et cetera. And theyre trying to come up with some plan that johnson could agree with. Could be onboard with. And the moderates, these are the moderates, not the radicals. They put together two bills. The Freedmens Bureau bill, which is to extend the life of the Freedmens Bureau. Its enacting in 1865. They want to extend its life so it can continue to try to maintain some semblance of order and peace and give some relief to southerners also in the aftermath of war. And they enact the civil rights of 1866. Which for the first time defines National Citizenship in American History. What does it mean to be a citizen of the United States . Before the civil war, pretty much each state decided who is a citizen and who is not. So some states in the northern, for instance, new england, gave black men the right to vote. Most northern states did not. So you could pretty much decide as a state what rights you give a person. Its only during reconstruction that you have a National Idea of citizenship. Yes, there were federal laws that regulated immigration. But the 1719 immigration law, naturalization law, only whites can enter the country. It was a racial law. Here, you have a very different view of civil rights and National Citizenship. It is to give black people some basic rights, you know, the right to sue, to hold property, to enter into contracts. These were important. You think of them as minor rights, but actually they were important rights if you were to be paid adequate wages for your work, et cetera. So it was important for black people to get these basic sieving righsievcivic rights. The radicals are going further, saying give them the right to vote. Thats what citizenship is about. Black men, at least, no one is talking about women except the feminists, should have the right to vote. We should give them the right to vote. These are the bills to go up to johnson, and johnson vetoes both. Why is the Civil Rights Act passed . Because of the black code, something jeremy mentioned, right . These johnson state governments in the south pass what are known as black codes. Theyre literally updated versions of the slave codes of the south. Now, southerners who had been defeated and maybe under lincoln or somebody who was more statesman like, might have accepted their defeat if certain demands are put on them, but johnson has been so lenient that they decide, hey, we have our man in the white house. Civil war . Forget about that. Were going to win the peace, and they pass these black codes. And the black codes are pretty awful. They recognize the end of slavery. Right . They say okay, you know, slavery has ended. But they try to restrict black rights and black freedom and put black people to asclose a state to slavery as possible. And several of these were egregious. The Mississippi Black code was probably the worst. They enacted vagueerance eed v saying if a black person is found not working for someone, he can be arrested and fined. In order to pay his fine, hes released to a plantation to work for a planter. If a black person is tilling his own land or is selfemployed, hes defined as a vagrant. They vase black people to enter into yearlong contracts to work in plantations. So get to sort of commandeer black labor the way they had under slavery. Enticement laws, meaning if i have signed a contract with a black person for his labor, if another person comes to him and offers him more money to work for him, he cant do it. Thats a that is a criminal offense. That is enticing my laborer. Now is that the free market . Wage labor . That is not how it works, right. Would you work for the guy who pays you the most. But that is not allowed. To oppressing. And apprenticeship laws. It was seen as a nice thing. Children will be apprentice to a local craftsman, they would learn the trade and become the craftsman. What did the apprenticeship laws do . They took black children out of their families and apprentice them. So black parents are seen as unfit so they would work for the white master and not going to school the way freed people wanted them to, et cetera. The mississippi law was so bad that it even would not allow black people to own land, right. They could not they didnt own land they would be forced to work for the whites, forced to work in the plantations. Every legal or political trick to constrict black freedom and have them working virtually as slaves is what they were doing. Black people could be fined and imprisoned for sad itious speech and slave behavior. Whites, were not allowed to own arms or knives and the whites who gave them liquor or arms or traded with them could also be imprisoned and fined. Its like the slave codes. It is a regulated black freedom to make a mockery of it. Alex has a question. Do you think that the 13th amendment with the exception to a punishment to use slavery had a playing with the black codes throughout the south because they could take that exception and institute slavery as a punishment and just punish blacks for little crimes, do you think that played a big part in the black codes . Well, not really. I think it is the way to the question that jeremy was asking, too. You could say that the black codes over reached. They went beyond. Because the 13th amendment is punishment for a crime. This is regulation of black rights and labor to an extent. That is not even visualized in the 13th amendment. Eventually southerns would do that. They would convict black people for various petty crimes and this is part of the system in the south. And many people today trace the origins of mass incarceration in the United States back to this period for that reason. Eventually they would do that. But, yeah, i mean they thought they were following the law, that they had recognized the end of slavery but they have another legal system, they dont wall it slavery, but it could be slavery by another name or worse than slavery, right. And that is to the Civil Rights Act, the republicans are hearing this and the committee is hearing what is happening in the south under the black codes and the Civil Rights Act is a reaction to that. But johnson vetoes both. He vetoes anyone who thinks that johnson was a continuation of lincoln, he vetoes the freedom bureaus act. This is a federal Government Agency and this is Big Government overreach and it is unconstitutional. Jenson . One thing i thought was interesting is the reasoning for that could also be his racism but he had a strong notion that only the unwealthy white population should be ruling and should have political power so i feel like he probably thought that the Freedmans Bureau offered so much political power to the black population which could be his reasoning for that. I dont know if that is it is sort of connected i would say. Because you could say that for johnson a slave owner and big planter class and black slaves are two sides of the same coin. He saw them as connected. But when he implemented his reconstruction policy he was lien yents to the planter class. They were pardoned overnight. He liked that they came golfing to him for pardons and he pardons them all. So he had no punitive plan. He decided that his racism outweighs, because does not punish and does not see the Freedmans Bureau, he sees this as a fight that southern whites have to face. And you see this in the voto message to the Civil Rights Act. Which is not giving them what radicals are asking for. The right to vote. Just the basic civil rights that ensures theyre no longer slaves. In his message, if you read johnsons veto because many of the echos are still there today. He uses this notion that he begins to say, hey, what are we, is this a white mans government, are we going to give rights to the chinese immigrants in california, to gypsies, indians, what are we coming to, it is a purely racebased argument. He even comes up with this notion of reverse discrimination. If we give black people rights weve infringing on the southern rights. It is not just a constitutional objection, which is way they portrayed him in the Dunning School. This is a purely racist argument. And this notion that somehow rights are limited amount, that if you give some people their right youre inflicting it on other people. This is not the notion of universal natural rights of the declaration of independence, this is not the notion of human rights as we understand it today. It is this very parochial narrow racist constricted version of rights. And this notion of white grievance that he puts forward. He said, you know, youre discriminating against whites by giving black people rights. That is his argument. And its echoed could be found in the 17th and 18th and the reverse discrimination, if you try to rectify previous wrong, in this case 250 years of slavery, that you are somehow, you know, inflicting that on others. And this is a direct quote from his civil rights veto. He said, in fact the distinction of race and color is by the bill, made to operate in favor of the colored and against the white race. Thats the kern el of his reasoning. His whole argument is extremely racist. And his plan is completely, you know, sort of put in disrepute in the north because of what happens in the south in july. The famous memphis and new orleans riots. They were not race riots, they were southern whites attacking blacks. Burning their homes, schools, killing them. So the memphis ride begins with a black carriage, it is a Traffic Accident and it escalates into a complete program on black people in memphis. And what is shocking is that the local Police Forces cannot be relied on to restore order. They join with the white rioters and start attacking black people. It results in the death of 46 black men, five black women are raped, Union Army Troops have to be called in to restore order. A few months later, in new orleans, the Constitutional Convention meets to discuss reconstruction. And radical republicans are asking that they consider black rights or pretty much what lincoln had written to michael hahn, the governor of louisiana, consider giving black men the right to vote. What happens here . There is an attack by a racist mob on the convention. On the Constitutional Convention. The state convention. And in the end 34 blacks and three white radical republicans are killed. And the union army again has to be called in to restore order because local Law Enforcement parties join in and start attacking black schools and black communities. And Philip Sheridan arrives to restore order and he said it is a massacre. Theyre just massacring people. This evoked a huge reaction in the north. Because people are saying wait a minute, didnt we just fight a war for four or five years, right. For four years with a lot of loss of life and blood and treasure and were back to square one. This is not peace. These issues are still being contested. Johnson does not budge. While people in the Republican Congress are hearing what is happening, people in the north, hes like, no, im going to make the 1866 elections about my plan versus the plan of the republicans. And he demeans himself completely. I mean, he didnt have a good start. He was drink at his own inauguration. Yeah, at the second inauguration, he was drunk, so badly drunk that he had to be held up. So, he completely demeans his office by by campaigning against his own party, against the Republican Party. Going to the north, and he plays the race card repeatedly. He thinks he could unite white northerns with white southerners on race. He said black rights and they mean social equality, would your daughter marry a black man, this is where it begins. He demeans himself and so crude that people in the crowd start shouting back at him and he engages them. Sometimes he is hooted out of town and because northern Public Opinion is not being swayed by playing the race card. Things that had worked were not working at this time. Yeah. This is a swing around the circle in case you are thinking. He did a swing around the circle in the north which is a complete disaster. Yeah. So im hearing this and im thinking about what you said about stevens and all of the other confederates entering congress and im thinking about sumner kane a few years prior, was there any strong reaction by the republicans in congress against these confederates rejoining the government . Very good question. Because, in fact, when the johnsons representatives show, congress does not admit them. They realize now that these governments with the black codes, et cetera, the riots, theyre not going to be seen. That they needed a proper reconstruction of the south. That includes africanamericans. Because basically africanamericans have been completely excluded, right. So they realize, and this is the start of congressional reconstruction. But this is what johnson is doing at this point. Which is simply not being able to comprehend, that a reconstruction of the south would include black people in any way. Yeah. I just think it is interesting, especially when he was engaged with the crowds because my favorite part from the chapters was when someone yells out they go hang jeff davis and he said back why not thaddeus stevens. He advocated for the execution of his own party members. That is such political suicide. I dont understand how the president could think that was a good idea to say. Exactly. Well whether it was stupidity, ineptness and racism and imagine telling a northern crowd that lets hang northern Republican Congressman instead of the confederates who have committed rebellion against the union. Right. And im glad you brought that up. Because that is what happens. He engages in shouting matches with northern publics but his attempt to play the race card does not really work. Because, guess what . This is what the north is seeing. You see this. It is a black mall and got the kkk and the white league because these are the organizations being formed in 1866. Bedwood forest and others are forming white vigilante groups in order to terrorize black people into submission. You see a white eagle, wearing parts of an old confederate uniform and the kkk joining hands, a occurring black family. Johnsons motto, the union as it was, this is a white mans government and here it is written, worse than slavery. Here is a black man hanging from a tree. A black schoolhouse being burned. This is what the north is seeing. Right. So you could imagine that with all of this news coming from the south and johnson sends a republican, a german american immigrant to the south to report on him. What are the conditions in the south. Johnson realized he doesnt want that report to he refused to publish it but congress publishes the reports and basically he said these people, he calls them incorrigibles. He said johnson has in a way encouraged them to be even more obturate. They were not ready for black freedom or any concession of black rights and they have not accepted defeat in the war. They were sting hanging on to the ideas that they had fought for. And so people in the north at this time, this is what theyre seeing and they pretty much decide that johnsons plan is not the way to go. And i will in my next class talk more about congressional reconstruction, the men who led that and the measures that you have read that youre reading this week, right. Read the speeches of lieman trumbull, of George Julian and thaddeus stevenson there in your book. Read the 14th amendment. That is the cornerstone of congressional reconstruction. And the reconstruction acts of 1867 that basically remands the south back. They reject these new johnson state governments with the black codes, with the racial terror that is spreading in the south at this time. And they say, youve got to go back. You have to give black people the right to vote. You have to form new state governments and then you will be readmitted to the union. Will you not be readmitted to the union under these conditions. And in that, because of johnson, the Republican Party has moved towards the radical vision. Because what began with just a civil rights bill, johnson vetoed, remember the civil rights bill, ends up with a program for black suffrage in order to reconstruct the south. And that is pretty radical. Because remember most northern states dont give black men the right to vote. Including connecticut by the way. Connecticut had not only, you know, taken away the right to vote from black men with the spread of jacksony an democracy, during this time a referendum came up to give men the right to vote and it was defeated. A percentage favored black men to give them the right to vote kept increasing. Whenever this referendum came up in the north, it was normally defeated. In wisconsin, minnesota and connecticut. So when radical reconstruction begins, it is not only redefining sort of democracy and rights in the south, it is doing that for the nation as a whole, right. And the 14th and the 15th amendment enfranchise black men all over the nation and they put ford a notion of interracial democracy that simply does not exist before in the United States. And guess what . Those issues, those ideas, we are still talking about that today. Were still contesting those. So when you go back after todays class, i do want you to read those speeches, read the 14th amendment, read the reconstruction act of 1867 and well figure out whether this was a period in which the vindictive north tried to impose rule in the south or a period in which black rights and ideal black citizenship flowers for a brief moment in American History. Okay. One last question. Go ahead, jenson. We have one minute. Yeah. I just have a question about the kkk. So, like, i know this is, like, youre allowed freedom of assembly, if youre an organization, but if theyre doing what theyre doing, wouldnt that be against the constitution, youre infringing on peoples rights therefore you shouldnt exist as an organization . Absolutely. You see, what has happened is that the bill of rights that gives us all of those basic protections, right, it was part of our constitution. But black people were never seen as part of it. Very few people, abolitionists, radical republicans, believed in including africanamericans under those protections, right. In fact, according to many abolitionists, black americans couldnt be held at slaves because youre violated all kinds of things in the bill of rights. But wait a minute, this does not apply to blacks. This is the question. Now the bill of rights was all about individual rights, right. During reconstruction they start giving positive rights. In terms of the right to vote becomes a definition of citizenship. Before that the right to vote wasnt. A lot of people couldnt vote in the United States. Africanamericans couldnt, women couldnt at that point. Each generation literally in a way had to reimagine the constitution and broaden boundaries to include all of this. So you could say that, you know, southerners could think we have slavery on the constitution, why cant we have the kkk. Because black people are not citizens. If they are claiming to go out of their space, that we have as sort of menial labor for us, we will react and we will we dont want them to have any rights or participate in government, et cetera. So they didnt see it as unconstitutional. Johnson thought he was all for the constitution too, right. This is a white mans government and indeed in the 1868 president ial election ill talk about and later finally the Republican Party is able to dump johnson and have Ulysses Grant as their candidate. And youll see this in the photo book, the poster, this is a white mans country and a white mans government. That is the slogan of the party. They didnt mince words. So many times youll read and this happens a lot, neo confederate websites that will say, this is all about this this is not about this, but this is about that. But go back to the domecuments. Because those people are clear. They stand for slavery. We stand for white supremacy. Theyre very clear about it and they thought they were doing the constitutional thing, too. Which is why, in a way, the radicals end up rewriting the constitutional, at least amending it to a substantial degree to make it quite clear that africanamericans are included within the protections of the u. S. Constitution and the u. S. Government. But that is the story for next class where i will give you back your papers. I know youve been very patient. Hopefully the snowstorm doesnt hit us on thursday. It is all done with and well be able to do that, okay. So good. Ill see you next class then, all right. Bye. Every saturday at 8 00 p. M. Eastern on American History tv on cspan3, go inside a Different College classroom and hear about topics ranging from the american revolution, civil rights and u. S. President s to 9 11. Thanks for your patience and for logging into class. With most College Campuses closed due to the impact of the coronavirus, watch professors transfer teaching to a virtual setting engage with students. Gorbachev did most of the work to change the soviet union. But reagan met him half way, reagan encouraged him, he supports him. Freedom of the press, which well get to later, madison called it freedom of the use of the press and it is indeed freedom to print and publish things, it is not a freedom of what we now refer to institutionally as the press. Lectures in history, on American History tv on cspan3 every saturday at 8 00 p. M. Eastern. Lectures in history is also available as a podcast, find it where you listen to podcasts. Weeknights this month were featuring American History tv programs as a preview of what is available every weekend on cspan3. Tonight, we visit Georgetown University for a class on the progressive era with professor Catherine Benton cohen. She explained how reform groups in the early 20th century attempted to improve conditions through trust busting and interstate regulation and prohibition and we hear about the policies and campaigns of roosevelt, the periods most dominant political figure. Watch tonight beginning at 8 00 eastern. Enjoy American History tv, this week and every weekend on cspan3. Now on lectures in history, American University professor w. Joseph campbell teaches a class on myths about William Randolph harts and the leadup to the spanish american war at the end of the 19th certainty. It debunked that he telegrammed one of his correspondents on assignment in cuba, saying, quote, you furnish the pictures, ill furnish the war. Good morning, welcome. Today were going to talk about one of the most tenacious media myths in american journalism. It has to