Was Lincoln's Plan for Reconstruction Too Lenient?

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

Well, a lot of Radical Republicans thought so. By 1863, with much of Louisiana, Arkansas, Tennessee, Mississippi, and parts of Virginia under Union control, Lincoln was working toward easing the southern states back into the Union.

His plan was simple. His Proclamation of Amnesty and Reconstruction offered full pardons and restoration of all property except slaves to all of those who would swear allegiance to the United States and accept all laws and proclamations of the President and U.S. government concerning slavery and emancipation. Once 10% of the voting population of 1860 met these conditions, they could "reestablish" a recognized state government. Political and civil leaders as well as high ranking Confederate officers were excluded from this plan, but otherwise Lincoln's reconstruction policy was remarkably lenient - no punishment for treason.

Naturally, radicals in the republican party were incensed. Under Lincoln's pan, free black people were to be kept in a subservient state - landless laborers. Southern states were even allowed to enact labor laws restricting movement of freed people. Furthermore, traitors were let off the hook. Radicals in Congress insisted on harsh measures.

But what could they do? If, as Republicans had argued, the states could not, and thus had not seceded from the Union, then Congress had no authority to interpose any plan against state constitutions. Well, clever minds among the radicals in Congress came up with a couple of things. Thadeus Stevens viewed the southern states as "conquered provinces" and wanted to treat them accordingly. But that was too radical even for the radicals. So Charles Sumner came up with the idea of "state suicide." The states, by the act of secession, had essentially given up their statehood and reverted to territorial status, which meant that Congress had every right to step in and have their way. Still, many in the North thought this was too radical as well.

The debate raged on and on between the wings of the Republican Party. Bills were introduced (and vetoed), compromises reached (that fell apart) and just when Lincoln hinted that he might be moving toward a new plan for reconstruction, an assassin's bullet cut him down. We will never know what Lincoln had in mind

So when it comes to wartime reconstruction - what do you think? Do you think Lincoln should have come down harder?

Peace,

Keith

The Caning of Charles Sumner

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

So imagine you are a member of the United States Congress - pick the Senate or the House of Representatives....it matters not. Now imagine some senator gives a speech that does not sit so well with you. What would you do? I suppose beating that person senseless in the senate chamber is probably out of the question, right? Well, not if it is 1856 - they got to have all the fun!

This is a pretty well-known story but nevertheless, it's something to think about as we all sit around and complain about our own "do-nothing" Congress. These guys did plenty. As the story goes: Sumner had recently delivered a speech on the slavery issue in Kansas - a hot topic to be sure, that could easily get the ire up from either side of the debate. In this speech he named names - which included hurling insults at proponents of the pro-slavery  faction such as South Carolinian Andrew P. Butler. Preston Brooks, Butler's cousin and a congressman from the Palmetto State did not take so kindly to Sumner's insolent remarks.

Now, Brooks could have challenged Sumner to a duel, as some southerners were wont to do. But dueling was for social equals - and Brooks undoubtedly saw Sumner as nothing more than a weak abolitionist Yankee politician...hardly a gentleman of his caliber. (in case you are interested, - this is a great book on dueling) So instead he approached Sumner as he sat at his desk in the senate chamber, informed him of his offenses, and beat him bloody with a cane. He hit him 30 times if he hit him once. Sumner stood up, pulling the bolted chair out of the floor and collapsed covered with blood - the caning put him out of commission for the next several years.

Southerners rejoiced - hailing Brooks as a hero of southern principles. Some even sent him new canes that were inscribed with such phrases as "Hit Him Again." But the caning had perhaps unintended consequences that we might overlook. In ways this event galvanized the North. Many who might have been luke-warm on Sumner or the anti-slavery contingent suddenly saw things in a different light. The northern press portrayed Brooks as a typical southern hothead. In matters of contention, Brooks's actions proved that the proslavery South would do nothing less than resort to violence. Northerners who followed the story could easily concur with this perception - and many thus aligned accordingly.

Peace,

Keith

P.S - I understand that historian Michael Holt (author of The Rise and Fall of the American Whig Party) does a fantastic recreation of this event, where he plays both roles. I have never seen this personally, but I hear it is quite the show.