What were the main reasons for the defeat of Reconstruction in the South?

Question

Reconstruction 1865 - 1877

Answer 1

I see that some of the popular mythology about this has come out. I'll go into the problems with that more below, but let me start with this:

* it was NOT because of "carpetbaggers" (nor "scalywags")

* it was NOT because of some secret dirty deal by Hayes or his representatives to somehow be handed the Presidency

SUMMARY (if I had to pick the two main factors):

- determined effort of Southern opponents of black rights (expressed esp in riots, lynchings, and electoral shenanigans).

- an economic downturn and scandals in the Grant administration weakened his ability, and the Northern will, to continue investing resources in this effort (Northern racism played a role here)

At the end, I'll list what seemed to be THE big turning point, after which Reconstruction could not be saved. It pulls these two factors together.

_____________________________

Details:

A number of tendencies and events led to the undermining and eventually the end of Reconstruction efforts by 1877.

Primarily the opposition to Reconstruction efforts in various quarters (some mild, some virulent) led those who wished to continue it either to become discouraged and give up their efforts, or to lose the political power (seats!) to be able to carry on.

1) The conservative Supreme Court undercut Reconstruction legislation as early as 1868. Their declaration that the Civil Rights Act of 1875 was unconstitutional removed further tools the effort had depended on to guard the rights of the freedmen.
http://www.sparknotes.com/history/american/civilrights/section1.html

2) Strong white opposition in the South meant that the effort to enforce Reconstruction entailed a MILITARY effort which, over time, Northern whites were less willing to continue. Some messy encounters from white intimidation of black voters, lynching, etc. acclerated the disenchantment . (Racism played a role here, though over time ANY such military efforts against fellow citizens was bound to make people war-weary.)

3) The PERCEPTION -- perpetuated esp by conservative Southern opponents -- that the Southern governments under the control of blacks and of Southern whites who had remained loyal to the Union were incompetent and very corrupt, undermined Northern support for these governments and made them more willing to accept the return of the former white leaders ("Redeemers").

This view of incompetence and corruption -- perhaps not of the early Northern 'carpetbaggers' but at least of the Southern Unionist 'scalawags' and black leaders-- was dominant for many years, esp. as articulated by William Dunning of Columbia University in the early 20th century.
http://www.wwnorton.com/college/history/archive/resources/documents/ch18_02.htm

More recent studies have indicated that these perceptions were inaccurate. Though there was some corruption, it was no more than could be found in Northern states, and many of the radical governments were very competent and successful. And the daunting task of rebuilding the states after the war and of expanding services (including education for black children) was a daunting one. But whatever the facts the perception (that is, general public opinion) was enough to undercut public support for the whole endeavor.
http://www.let.rug.nl/~usa/H/1994/ch6_p14.htm

4) Northern radicals and Grant's pro-freedmen policies lost signficant power as the Grant administration was buffeted by accusations of corruption (which led to a breakoff group of "Liberal Republicans" opposing his second term) and an economic depression.

Amidst all this the Republican party as a whole (that is, not just the radicals who had been in control) found that it had a sufficient political base to succeed on the national level even without a strong southern wing (of 'scalawags' and freedmen). So there was less incentive to prop up the Southern Republican governments.

It is often suggested that a major key to the end of Reconstruction was the so-called "Compromise of 1877", a hypothetical secret deal made by supporters of Rutherford B Hayes to secure his election in the disputed election of 1876, and including an agreement to remove federal troops from the last two Southern statehouses they were guarding. But the real key was that Northern support for the effort had fallen apart, as outlined above. In fact, Grant had already been moving in this direction, feeling he had no choice, and Hayes had promised in his CAMPAIGN that he would remove these troops. (Hence it is questionable whether the "Compromise" ever even happened.)

_____________________________

THE TURNING POINT -- the "Mississippi Plan"

This is well laid out in Nicholas Lemann's recent book *Redemption: The Last Battle of the Civil War*. (My only complaint is that he accepts, without examination, the role of the "Compromise of 1877".)

Lemann focuses on the events leading up to the effort of white "redeemers" in Mississippi in 1875 to 'take back' the state government for whites (that is, white Democrats, NOT pro-Northern 'scalawags' or 'carpetbaggers'). It was, essentially, a TERRORIST campaign, of murder, lynchings and intimidation that succeeded in driving black Republicans away from the polls that year. In fact, they had been doing some of this for several years, but never to this degree.

Though it was difficult to pin everything down, the evidence is quite strong that these were co-ordinated by political leaders, who managed to cover their tracks. (The official story they gave was that these were just a series of disconnected events, all of them spontaneous reactions of local whites to threatening actions by blacks.)

When this effort, thereafter dubbed the "Mississippi Plan", proved successful, it was quickly exported to other states that had not yet been "redeemed", for use in 1876. This, and various other devious means -- such as BALLOT stuffing-- enabled the Democrats to claim that they had won several of these states in the Presidential election of that year.

Unfortunately, in the midst of all this President Grant, who had supported the southern Reconstruction governments with federal troops, "blinked"... deciding to trust assurances of no violence. But it turns out he was acting in part at the urging of Ohio Republicans who believed they would lose THEIR elections (including the gubernatorial race of R.B. Hayes) if Grant sent in more troops. (Northern support for Reconstruction had been weakening for some time, as people tired of the costs, the violence, etc.)

By this time, there was widespread pressure to remove the few remaining troops from the South (where they were guarding state houses in Louisiana, S.Carolina and Florida).

As a result, it was this campaign of 1875, carried further in 1876. In short, once Grant, in a tight spot, had "blinked", it was impossible to turn back.

-------------

The incredible thing is that this whole story was for many years MIS-told, in both popular lore and then even in histories. This despite the fact that the U.S. Senate, investigating the matter collected many materials and much testimony that support the more recent view (which Lemann is presenting).


For a quick overview of the story of Lemann's book check out these reviews:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/07/AR2006090701152.html
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0609.meacham.html
http://www.americanheritage.com/events/articles/web/20060919-reconstruction-white-line-adelbert-ames-civil-war-ulysses-s-grant-nicholas-lemann.shtml

Answer 2

There was little or no money to actually carry out Lincoln's plans to reconstruct the south. His political enemies were determined to see his ideas fail, too. Johnson had very little power, and the South never believed they actually LOST the War of Northern Aggression. Oh they knew the Union survived and defeated their ideal new country, but they did not change their way of life. They continued to keep blacks in positions of servitude, they continued to hold the idea of the south over the reality of it, and they continued to believe the northerners were to blame for their failure. The northerners didn't particularly care if anyone in the south survived economically or physically. With no people to hold the government in check, the Union of the United States faced a sad future of racial hatred fed by belief systems that were based on fairy tales and lies. There was no decent leadership and no money to enforce laws enacted after the Civil War, so the Reconstruction was doomed from the time it started.

Answer 3

When Abraham Lincoln was assassinated the plan for rebuilding the south "with malice toward none" fell by the wayside. Most historians agree that lincoln was the best freind the South ever had. Under Johnson the plans to rebuild the South actually did more to condemn the South to go down a path of poverty and ignorance as the Yankee carpet baggers exploited the South and it's resources. Even the freed slaves who wished to stay on workers on the plantations that they called home were unable to be paid well enough to stay as the Southern Economy was totally in the toilet. One could argue that the social, economic and educational deficiencies that still plague the South today are resonating from the actions of our fore-fathers over 100 years ago.

Answer 4

1876 was one of the presidential elections when (as with Gore Bush 2000) the person receiving the most popular vote did not receive the most electoral vote. Samuel Tilden (D) won the popular votes, Rutherford B. Hayes (R) won the electoral, and the country was in an uproar with demands for recounts and accusations of stolen election, etc.. Short version of a long story: an agreement was reached whereby the Southern Congressmen agreed to support Hayes (who they had not supported in the election) but only if Reconstruction would end, which is why it ended in 1877.

Answer 5

after the assassination of Lincoln. some of the more strict northern minds took control. when they did. they did the same as America now.they took every advantage to make money. then they really didn't care about the economy of the south African Americans or the altogether social welfare of the south.then the KKK, segregation and poll taxing began. the south was never good in public education or social giving. so that's why they were left behind in educational matters. states like Massachusetts and Pennsylvania had public schools mandated in the laws before the revolution. but exploitation is the reason for all the problems of the south before during and after the civil war.

Answer 6

Yankee carpetbaggers.