tv Lectures in History CSPAN August 8, 2015 2:30pm-3:49pm EDT
some of those trials fish those of you familiar with what germany did, these medical experience on people -- the japanese bully matched anything the germans did in that category . -- the japanese fully matched anything that germans did in that category. >> i greatly appreciated your presentation. >> thank you. [applause] >> you can watch our special programming on the 70 anniversary of the atomic bombings of hiroshima and hiroshimad nagasaki japan tonight at 10:00 p.m. we look back to the atomic bombings and the end of the war
and pacific. that is here on american history tv on c-span3. next, suzanne only talks about the changing perception of who qualified for citizenship in post-civil war america. she describes the legislation passed during that era and the debate about whether citizenship and voting privileges should be tied to loyalty to the union race or gender. her classes about one hour and 15 minutes. -- her class is about one hour and 50 minutes. -- and 15 minutes. dr. lee: good afternoon. how are you all doing? as you know, i am susanna lee. we are here today in my civil war reconstruction class and today we are talking about reconstruction. in particular, citizenship during reconstruction. the remaking of citizenship during congressional reconstruction.
let's review. what were some of the main points that we talked about in last the last class? yes, robin? >> we talked about the way states were provided with the proper representation -- which was new compared to the 10% plan. it was -- they were unionists throughout the war, unlike the other plan where they are suddenly a part of that side. dr. lee: we talked about wartime reconstruction and lincoln's 10% plan, which some disagreed with because it allowed too many former confederates into power. robin mentioned the way that this was a radical reaction to the 10% plan. it was understood as a way to
ensure that government would be in the hands of loyal men. what other points did we cover? chase? >> [indiscernible] dr. lee: we talked about presidential reconstruction under johnson and it seemed in many respects lenient. it returned to power former confederates. there were a few limitations on voting or holding office. as we talked about, andrew johnson, pardoning former confederates in 1868. >> the meanings of freedom and how the african-americans and the whites had different
meanings at the end of the war and what they wanted to get out of it. we discussed the main meanings of what freedom meant to them. dr. lee: absolutely. we were talking about freedom and to what extent freedom was in existence in 1865. we talked about the way freedom was precarious and it was worked out in interactions with former slaves and former slave owners. that was an important point. >> we also talked about the black code adopted by the southern government. some people could not own land. if some blacks were seen in public without whites, they could be arrested and put on like, i guess forced to work on the public project. dr. lee: this is important.
the black code. as passed by southern legislature, under presidential reconstruction these are some of the first acts that these restored governments do. although many northern states were very discriminatory toward african-americans, what was different was these southern black codes were geared to keep african americans, newly freed black men and women, it in positions of economic dependence. this is significant because many white northerners, republicans viewed these black codes as an attempt to resurrect the institution of slavery. we briefly talked about racial violence in the aftermath of the civil war. the memphis riots and in new orleans riots. those were attacks on black men
and women, white republicans men who had been loyal to the union cause during the civil war. this was another signal to republican congressman it did not seem like former confederates were going to peacefully recognize they had lost the war. that freedom was a reality. we talked about the benefits of reconciliation, bringing former confederates back into the union. but, what if former confederates, once brought back into the union, did not abide by freedom? did not recognize the freedom of their former slaves? congressional reconstruction was an attempt to reconstruct southern society so white southerners, former confederates and slaveholders, recognized the freedom of their formerly
enslaved property. what we are going to talk about today is congressional reconstruction and in particular, how notions of citizenship change. i have two cartoons i want you to look at first. what is the story being told here in these cartoons? what is going on? joseph. >> it appears that the first cartoon is meant to be a portrayal of america as a woman, maybe accepting after granting them their rights, she is explaining to a wounded soldier he is going to have to leave.
dr. lee: it is a question. here you have a call to reestablish the union. let the former confederate states and citizens back into the union. we talked about this last class. the question is, shall i let in these former confederates? who acted against the united states. what about these men? these men who did not commit treason? these men sacrificed for the union cause. that is why to significant the character in the second cartoon is a union soldier. not just any union soldier. how does it indicate that sacrifice? how is the sacrifice indicated? >> it looks like he was wounded in battle so he served for his country. dr. lee: he is missing a leg
absolutely. what you have during reconstruction. here, i am talking about the white northern perspective. the unionist perspective. you have a situation in which the supporters of the union are reconceptualizing the nature of citizenship. what happens is in the antebellum era, access to the right and privileges of citizenship was restricted by race and gender. what happened during the civil war is those who were considered to be the best citizens, the best able to act as good citizens, white men in the south, what did they do? they were traitors. they tore the union apart. and then you have black men, who by virtue of being african-american or enslaved they were thought of as the antithesis of citizens, but they fought for the union cause.
you have a situation in which the notion of citizenship seems to be backwards. during the civil war and reconstruction, you have a reconceptualization of citizenship. particularly in the union, white northerners and westerners come to question their previous standards of citizenship. you see importance given to loyalty. not necessarily race. increasingly loyalty. this causes a reconceptualization of citizenship. you can also see african-american men making claims on citizenship on the basis of their loyalty.
it could also potentially upset the gender hierarchy as well as women potentially could build upon their loyalty and stake a claim for full rights of citizenship or what they understood as full rights in the union. today, i am going to talk about shifts in understandings of citizenship in the context of several major components of reconstruction as envisioned by congressional republican architects. we are going to be talking about the civil rights act, the 14th amendment, reconstruction acts the 15th amendment, and the documents assigned for today. i'm going to focus on the majority opinion. republicans, primarily the republican consensus as much as there was one. i'm going to show how congressional republicans in response to the intransigence of former confederates we talked about last class experimented with loyalty as a replacement for race in their understandings of citizenship and the ways in which they restricted access to
the right and privileges of citizenship during congressional reconstruction. first, the friedman's bureau. as they shifted to accept emancipation, republicans were fearful these slaves, soon-to-be former slaves, would not have the capacity to act as free citizens. as we have talked about, very clearly we understand most white southerners did not understand people of african descent could act as free citizens. we also talked about how many white northerners and westerners shared those views. during reconstruction, as the union shifts to embrace emancipation, there was a fear. what happens after the war? the federal government has a commission that seeks to explore that question.
what is the capacity of these african americans for freedom and citizenship? one of the recommendations is to create a bureau. that is the idea underlying the freedmen's bureau. it was understood as an institution that was overseeing the process from slavery to freedom but it was also a relief agency for both black and white southerners in the aftermath of the civil war. we talk about it as the freedmen's bureau but it also assisted white southerners. the federal government created it in 1865 to potentially prepare the former slaves for freedom and citizenship. republicans argued free people after years of being enslaved, they did not have the necessary
self-reliance to act as free people. the bureau was understood as temporary, they wanted it to be temporary, a temporary means by which the federal government could assist in the process of transitioning from slavery to freedom. as one proponent argued, we have 4 million people in poverty. because our laws have denied them the right to acquire property and ignorant because our laws have made it a felony to instruct them. because war has broken the shackles that found of them and release them from the plantations. we are to organize them in society and guide them as the guardian guides his ward until they can acquire habits and become capable of self control. we are to watch over them.
we have evidence they will more than repay our labor. if we do not, we will doom them to vagrancy and pauperism. why did this congressman deem the freedmen's bureau as necessary? what do you think? >> i believe he did not think they were able or capable of doing it themselves. dr. lee: capable of transitioning to freedom on their own. there were some republicans who are critical of the paternalism that without the assistance of whites, african-americans could not learn how to act as free citizens. he says here, they do not presently have habits of self-control. that is presuming they are lacking in that regard.
the federal government needs to come in and assist them. did you want to add something? >> i feel like it is very much spoken from a similar perspective of the slave owners. a paternalistic mentality that has not disintegrated even though the war is over. they are still viewed in the perspective of being enslaved. the war as being the only reason they were bound from their shackles. dr. lee: she makes a good point, showing the similarity and racist assumptions underlying the freedmen's bureau. what is different here, and the white republican thought, though that is a point we forget. what i want to point out is what republicans believe in, many
former slave owners do not, the idea of free labor. what you see moving forward, delving deeply, the resistance to free labor. >> it sounds like it is more the federal government's obligation to integrate them into society. dr. lee: that is an important point. because of our laws, the sanctions, we are complicit in what he considers to be there inferior position. that is a very smart point. what he is establishing is the obligation of the federal government to help raise them up. the government had been complicit. now it should also assist in the
transition from slavery to freedom. the restrictions built into the black codes and the violence towards former slaves we talked about earlier this week convinced many republican congressman as we talked about that white southerners refused to recognize abolition and they refused to treat black southerners as free laborers. free citizens. republican congressmen believed it was necessary to guarantee to former slaves their civil rights so they could be allowed, so that they have the tools to protect themselves from their former masters and mistresses. congress took steps to safeguard black civil rights in the civil rights act of 1866. this slide presents -- i think i missed it -- this slide presents
an excerpt from the act. the bill declared that anyone born in the united states except indians or citizens with laterally protected rights including the right to make contracts, the right to own and rent a property and the right to access courts and parties as witnesses. this act was really revolutionary in that it for the first time in the nation's existence defined citizenship in national terms. it had always been previously defined in state terms. this was a national expression of citizenship, regardless of race. proponents saw the act as an expression of the federal government's responsibility to protect the fundamental rights of american citizenship. the republican consensus
supported the freedmen's bureau. and also supported equal civil rights for african americans. nonetheless, president andrew johnson who had previously in a democrat, which explains some of the ways he was at odds with his nominal party, he vetoed an extension of the freedmen's bureau act. congress had to continually renew it so he vetoed that. he vetoed the civil rights act. he argued these congressional measures were unconstitutional because they represented augmentations of federal power. the federal government presumed to take on powers of authority reserved for the states. he also argued, what these measures did was to give special
handouts and protections and privileges to the blacks at the expense of whites. johnson specifically opposed the extension of the bureau on the grounds congress had never before provided such privileges to our people, as he called them. what does that mean? who was he referring to? >> the confederates? dr. lee: who else? who else was andrew johnson referring to by our people? what do you think? >> whites? dr. lee: more generally, the former confederates but also whites. he said, the federal government has never before offered these kinds of protections. the bureau did provide for white southerners as well as black southerners.
i think his perspective is significant because it shows how what is going on here during congressional reconstruction was a profound shift. a shift in the notion of who constitutes our people. you see congressional republicans trying to include african-americans into our people. you see this resistance to it by people like andrew johnson and also democrats who say, this is a white man's government. >> i am not quite familiar with this process on how did johnson become part of this? dr. lee: this is a little-known fact which many people are not necessarily aware of but during the civil war, we talked about the election of 1864, abraham lincoln, the candidate, did not run under the banner of the
republican party. he renamed the party the national union party. it was renamed in an attempt to create a coalition. the republican party had come into existence in the late antebellum era. lincoln is trying to broaden his coalition. andrew johnson was brought in as a vice presidential candidate because he was a democrat. appealed to democrats potentially, but also he had been loyal to the union. it was thought, he was brought in on the ticket even though he had not converted to the republicans as a means to broaden the coalition. does that make sense? ok. johnson, i talked about this attempt to restructure what "our people" meant.
he did not see the bureau as an attempt for inclusion, he saw it as favoritism. here you have the federal government favoring african-americans at the expense of whites. you see these arguments in a democratic broadside from 1866. the idea that what the bureau did was allow black southerners to laze about -- it was giving them rations, food, encouraging them to loaf about. therefore, why would a former slave work if the federal government was going to give them handouts? johnson opposed the civil rights bill because, as he contended,
the distinction of race and color is made to operate in favor of the colored and against the white race. he believed blacks were incapable of acting as good citizens. can it be reasonably supposed, he asked, that former slaves have the requisite qualifications to be citizens? he did not really expect an answer. he thought it was self evident. of course they could not. congressional republicans ultimately passed the extension of the freedmen's bureau and civil rights act over johnson's vetoes and moved to take control of the process of reconstruction. republican congressman feared a hostile judiciary and may be a future democratic majority in congress would eventually
subvert the civil rights act. they intended the 14th amendment, passed in 1866 and ratified in 1868, as a means to place black civil rights and citizenship on a firm constitutional footing. as you see from this next slide, the 14th amendment granted both states and a national citizenship to all black people born in the u.s. this is the concept of birthright citizenship. it has been in the news recently in the discussion of anchor babies. the 14th amendment prohibited states from enforcing any law which would abridge the privileges of citizenship.
>> each state will have representatives that are representative of the population? dr. lee: are representative of the population of -- you are getting at it here. >> isn't there a discrepancy of who is a whole number? dr. lee: it has to do with the 3/5 federal compromise. did you want to add something? >> they counted but they don't have the right to vote. it is just white men even though the black man counted? dr. lee: that is a factor. do you want to add anything, joseph? >> it felt like what they were getting at was [indiscernible]
the portion of the population you are preventing from voting you also lose in regards to your representatives. dr. lee: exactly. what is the problem? these former confederate states, they will have more political power than they did before because african-americans will be counted as full people. their representation in congress would be increased accordingly. at the same time, these former confederate states did not allow those men to vote. what this provision did was say, ok, you are going to disenfranchise black men then you are not going to get congressional representation for them. the means by which republican
congressmen were attempting to reduce the potential political power of the former confederacy without an outright enfranchisement of black voters. republicans, many of them were opposed to black suffrage. rather than forcing black suffrage upon the former confederate states, they chose to create this mechanism by which former confederate states would have their representation docked. ok? did you want to add something? finally, this slide. it presents what is called the disabling clause. the 14th amendment denied the privilege of holding office. to a significant segment of the southern political leadership.
republican congressmen intended this was a means to ensure office holding was in the hands of loyal southern men. the 14th amendment stopped short of the radicalism some republicans envisioned. radical republicans preferred mechanisms that placed government in the hands of loyal southerners. they objected to the 14th amendment because it did not explicitly enfranchise black men and did not disenfranchise former confederate. republicans did not establish black male suffrage in the 14th amendment because they knew it would be extremely unpopular not just among the opposition but also within the republican party as well. republican opponents cautioned that black men were not yet ready to vote. maybe they wouldn't ever be ready to vote. democratic opponents argued african-americans were lazy and stupid and incapable of acting as citizens.
they therefore called for a white man's government. confederate disenfranchisement also faced considerable opposition from both republicans and democrats. what do you think were some of the arguments against confederate disenfranchisement? why might any congressman be opposed to confederate disenfranchisement? what would be some of the opposition? what do you think? >> would it be maybe that in order to keep, possibly keep african-americans out of the system so much, if you will -- dr. lee: you are raising an important issue.
>> they are still white men. that holds precedence. they are still white men, you have this loyalty to a white supremacy and white man's government you are going to face , opposition by many. dr. lee: especially democrats are going to be opposed to disenfranchising white men. right? this is the idea this is a white men's government. these are white men. they are capable of acting as good citizens. we should restore them to their rights and privileges. why else? why else might congressmen oppose disenfranchisement, prohibiting former confederates from voting? what do you think? >> you would be alienating them when you are trying to get the country back together. a bunch of people whose rights you have taken away and they might try to start up another
rebellion or something like that that is going to give you a lot of grief when you are trying to put the country back together. dr. lee: there are the opinions of the white disenfranchised. there is the white democratic opposition. also those disenfranchised. think about it. as we talked about, during the civil war, there was a white unionist population but it was a minority of the southern population. if you disenfranchise former confederates, essentially what you are creating is a government of the minority. one of the foundational principles of the american experiment and republicanism is rooted in the consent of the governed. your disenfranchising former confederates they are not , allowed to participate.
not just democratic opponents but republican opponents complained it was essentially an -- unrepublican, that it was not legitimate. they were very wary of disenfranchising a significant portion of the population. i also want to add -- democrats also, in addition to the arguments we have mentioned, democrats also contended former confederates had sworn oaths of loyalty. they had sworn they would support the union in the future. they had returned to their loyalties in good faith. the argument among democrats was that they are loyal citizens. they have sworn to be loyal in the future. they should not be discriminated against. as one democrat put it, the people of the south, once rebels, are rebels no longer.
republican congressmen hesitated to impose on an arena that had traditionally been the province of states. voter qualifications. especially to impose what would be unpopular policies. still, the 14th amendment was a powerful and revolutionary expression of a quality written into the constitution. in the antebellum era, the chief justice of the supreme court had declared blacks were so inferior and so unfit to associate with the white race, they could just ly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for their own benefit. they had no rights a white man was bound to respect. slaves lacked all civil standing. they had not been able to vote.
they had not been able to sue. they had not been able to testify against whites. they had not been able to receive justice for assault, rape, murder. the 14th amendment was revolutionary because it declared these former slaves were citizens of the united states. republican congressmen established them as citizens. they had provided protections for black civil rights. they had provided incentives for black male suffrage if not black male suffrage itself. most republican congressmanen would have been willing to end reconstruction there. however, white southerners refused to ratify the 14th amendment. at the same time, violence towards black men and women and also toward white unionist continues. these actions convinced many moderate republicans to shift to
embrace more radical measures. as one republican complained they would not cooperate in rebuilding what they destroyed so we must remove the rubbish and rebuild from the bottom. we must compel obedience to the union and the demand detection -- protection for its humblest citizens. republican congressmen proceeded to impose further conditions on the former confederacy in the form of the reconstruction act of 1867 and 1868. these acts placed the former confederate states, with the exception of tennessee had passed the 14th amendment, under military occupation.
it created five military districts that would be overseen by generals in the army. it also provided for, and then also, with the military reconstruction act did was to divide the former confederacy into these military districts under the command of the army. it also declared all that the governments created under presidential reconstruction, under johnson, the ones that passed the black code, it declared them provisional only. what the reconstruction act of 1867-1868 did was provide a process to create new state governments to overturn those that had recently been created under presidential reconstruction. to re-create them on a loyal basis.
it did this in a couple of ways. you see on the slide the last two items. a process for creating state governments in the former confederacy. this process was different. it was different than what had happened before under presidential reconstruction. under the reconstruction act loyal men would be involved and would vote. loyal men would vote for delegates to constitutional conventions. loyal men would serve as deligates. at the same time former , confederates, not all former confederates but high-ranking former confederates, those disabled by the 14th amendment those former confederates were prevented from participating in the process of creating the new state governments. they were not allowed to participate. you have the participation of
loyal men, regardless of race. white men could participate. also black men. this is blackmail enfranchisement overnight. did you want to ask a question? >> is very extreme to me -- it seems very extreme to me because i feel like a strong pillar -- a strong pillar of america is the right to choose, voting for what you believe in. it seems they are taking away everyone who disagrees or does not claim loyalty. it seems very extreme. it does not seem right. dr. lee: it seemed very extreme to some opponents as well. what did you want to add? >> it was even more extreme for the confederates to remove themselves from the united
states because they didn't agree with the other politics. it was like they were trying to step to the side of it. dr. lee: maybe some congressional republicans saw this extreme measure, which everyone recognized as being extreme. they saw this measure as justified in an attempt deal with the calamities of the civil war. it seems antithetical to our foundational principles, as i talked about earlier, about the consent of the governed. what does that mean for african-americans? they are governed, too. under presidential reconstruction, they were not granted, they were not able to participate in the political process. does that make sense? what congressional republicans were attempting to do, and they thought of it as temporary, they wanted these governments to be loyal.
they wanted them to have a loyal basis and be created by loyal men. the reconstruction act did not require these no state governments to disenfranchise confederates forever. they just did not want them in the process of creating these new governments. they wanted to do that because they wanted to, even though it seems contradictory, they wanted to create this form of government in which white men and black men could participate. does that shed a little bit of light? ok. a republican commitment to the significance of wartime loyalty contributed to the black male suffrage act.
some republicans favored citizenship and its rights and privileges for black men as of a moment as their political obligation to the union. particularly through their military service as union soldiers. one republican praised the brave colored men who heroically bled in defense of their country, a country from which they have received injuries rather than blessings. the actions of white southerners during the civil war and under presidential reconstruction convinced most republican congressmen made black patriots made better citizens than white traitors. as a one republican put it loyal men of whatever color have more right to the ballot than disloyal men. even republicans doubtful of the merits of black suffrage expressed this opinion.
for example, one republican said, i am not sure. i am not sure black men are ready for the vote. but i know, i am positive, white men are not ready for the vote. this kind of goes against your point. they did not believe former confederates would recognize the freedom of these african-american men and women. they thought they therefore temporarily needed to be disfranchised. otherwise, they would be put back in a position of subordination. they saw that with the black codes and also with all of the violence towards african americans. african-americans are seeking to make something meaningful of their freedom. they are facing resistance from white southerners. this congressman put it, if i am asked which i would sooner trust, i would answer i prefer to trust the meanest black man
with a loyal heart who wore the chains of slavery to the most intelligent traitor who has waged war against my country. in these ways, you see republican congressmen, they were shifting away from racial capabilities toward the loyalty as the qualification for exercising the full rights and privileges of citizenship. continued white southern intransigence convinced many republicans that former confederates could not be trusted to act as good citizens. republican congressman feared that if these rebels were allowed to participate in the new governments, they would hold all the power. it would not bring black men in. they would continue to oppress and tyrannize black southerners and white unionists throughout
the south. as one republican urged, do not admit those who have slaughtered half a million of our countrymen until their clothes are dried and until they are reclad. i do not wish to sit side-by-side with men whose garments smell of the blood of my kindred. there was a notion they had proved themselves to be bad citizens. they needed to be remade and kept out of the union until they were ready to act as good citizens and recognize the freedom of african-american men, women, and children. the reconstruction provided a process to replace state governments with new state governments that would be in the hands of loyal southerners, both white and black.
the reconstruction act insured these new governments in the former confederate states would enfranchise black men but still, there was a fear among congressional republicans that black male suffrage was precarious. the feared future democratic majorities would disfranchised black men. they were also concerned about white southern intimidation of black voters throughout the south. that is a subject we are going to talk about next week. republican congressmen sought to provide a constitutional guarantee of suffrage in the 15th amendment. as this slide shows, the 15th amendment as passed by congress in 1869 and ratified by the states in established a racially 1870 impartial, if not universal suffrage. , states could reject voters on any factor other than race color, or previous condition of
servitude. this left open the possibility for states to disenfranchise on the basis of literacy, for example. this is going to be significant. for many republicans, black southerners, wartime loyalty open up space. black loyalty did not convince congressional republicans entirely, but it opened up the possibility. it alerted them to the possibility black men could act as good citizens. it was pragmatic considerations that cinched their claims. as we talked about earlier ironically with the abolition of the institution of slavery, former confederate states had greater political power. black male enfranchise meant was a way to counterbalance former
confederate votes. if you are not going to disfranchise former confederates permanently, they want to balance their influence with the black votes which they were fairly certain black men would vote for the republican party. many republicans thought this would end reconstruction because they thought that what it would do is invest black men with the power to protect their own rights. if they were able to vote, they would be able to protect their own rights and the federal government would not have to intervene in southern affairs. if we think about this again the , republican party was a sort of coalition. you had a variety of different people with different political positions.
many republicans were very hesitant to continue to require federal intervention. you had many republicans shying away from permanent federal power and intervention in the south. democratic opponents of blackmail voting dismissed republican tributes to black voting. some insisted the black cause had been insignificant. one congressman insisted they did not win their freedom. it came to them as one of the revolts of a great civil war in which white men contended for power and colored men played a subordinate part.
why did this democratic congressman show that, the fact that in his opinion they had little role in emancipation, why did he consider that important? why was that significant? he thinks they do not play any role in emancipation. it was just something given to them. why is that significant from his perspective? what you think, matthew? >> his overall argument seemed a lot more white soldiers died during the civil war. i don't think black soldiers were enrolled until later in the war. he seems to be arguing a lot of white soldiers bought their freedom for them. dr. lee: white soldiers sacrificed. blacks did not. what did you want to add? >> we gave you your freedom, so why should we give you more? dr. lee: right. it is the idea of we gave you
your freedom. you did not ask for it. within that is this idea that black men had all of these white men fighting for their beliefs their country. he is saying black men did not participate. their freedom was given to them. within that is maybe they did not even want their freedom, they did not know what to do with it. this is one of the reasons why our conversation over who freed the slaves is significant. this congressman is saying, the idea of slaves freeing themselves would never have occurred to them. he is saying they had no role in emancipation. to him implicit in that it is , they cannot act as citizens. you had white men who acted as citizens during the war. black men were just given their freedom. the idea that black men did not participate in their own emancipation for this democratic congressman was a powerful justification for their continued disenfranchisement.
policies that prevented them from voting and holding office. women did not benefit from the shift to wartime loyalty. women's rights activists hoped they could capitalize on this emphasis for loyalty to push for female suffrage. one supporter said, they did not go to the battlefields with muskets and bayonets, but they did render services at home equally as valuable as fighting. they use that as an argument to say, we are loyal citizens, we deceive the vote. -- we deserve the right to vote. >> the questions they asked women, one was not -- dr. lee: we are going to get there. republican congressmen were not convinced the contributions had been sufficient to overcome presumptions of their natural domesticity.
as one proponent put it, they cannot bear their share of the public burden. they represent them in the army and the navy. therefore they vote for them in the government. republican congressman argued blacks needed the protection of the vote, whereas women did not need that protection. they were protected by their husbands and fathers who voted for them. loyalty mattered for black men but did not matter for white women or black women for that matter. as i have discuessed so far, loyalty assumed greater importance during the civil war and reconstruction. how do you define loyalty? as we have discussed so far, some politicians define loyal men as men who swore a load of
-- sore an oath of loyalty to the union. that included former confederates. there are others who define it that stipulated they would be loyal in the future and had been loyal in the past. that included unionists and excluded confederates. there is a difference of opinion about what constitutes loyalty. loyalty was not defined solely by politicians. that is why i have the documents assigned to you today. so we can look at southerners themselves defined loyalty. these sources allow us to examine the different definitions of loyalty. we are looking at records from the southern claims commission. who can summarize what the southern claims commission did? what was it established to do? this is a question i know you all know.
>> the commission awarded monetary compensation to southerners who could prove he had been loyal to the u.s. dr. lee: it was recognizing their rights to property, only the loyal citizens. if you proved the union army took your property and you were loyal, you could get monetary compensation. did you want to add something? >> weren't there specially appointed people who went around and interviewed citizens? i thought that was interesting because to do that with such a task. trying to decipher who is truthful and just trying to get money. dr. lee: it is a big task. i'm glad you pointed out the appointment of these people throughout the south. those people are representatives of the federal government. former confederates were opposed to them. within their communities they , would have these special commissioners who were representing the interests of the commission. they were personifying the
federal government. not only with a representative of the federal government, they were rewarding loyal southerners. if you were a former confederate, you are a disloyal southerner. loyalty depended on the perspective. let's look at some of these claims. let's talk about ruben garland. what was the deal with him? what was his story? what did he claim? what did the commissioners think about him? >> is this the first guy? i think this is the one where he was aiding his uncle monetarily. he claimed he did not do much but he admitted to helping his uncle in part of the confederates. dr. lee: he was in the confederate military. >> he was honest. at the end, it was like, sorry it is not granted. dr. lee: he had assisted the confederate cause.
the commissioner said, you were not loyal. why did garland think he had a claim? why did he apply? if he assisted the confederate cause, why did you think he applied? what do you think? >> what he claimed his he did not do anything to directly support the confederacy. he claimed he had bonds he received in trade but did not receive directly himself. he had travel passes but did not swear an oath of allegiance. and really -- he claims not to have operated his company to benefit the confederacy. dr. lee: he did not see himself as a devoted confederate. why else?
>> he voted against secession. dr. lee: he had initially been opposed to secession. yes, he did later in some way offer support, but he had initially been opposed to secession. this really distinguished him from those who are original secessionists. those who had supported secession from the outset. these were distinctions being made in the south. garland did not consider himself a confederate like his neighbors who had been advocating for secession in the secession crisis with the election of abraham lincoln. he had been opposed to that. therefore, he understood himself as a loyal citizen. these are distinctions the federal government were not making.
they were recognizing them. that shows the divisions of opinion over loyalty. you going to add anything? >> you mention in the sense of himself, he said i only went with it because my state did. he made it seem like he had more ties to his states loyalty. it seem like he was saying that in defense of himself since he was not an original secessionist. dr. lee: it's interesting that phrase you hear frequently or read frequently is they went with their state. what that is saying is they have operated in obedience to the constituted government around them. that is expressing, emphasizing that he had acted as a citizen. he had followed the dictates of his state. what did you want to add? in addition to that, it seems
like they were not just looking for people who were going along with everyone around them going with the state, but were looking for people who were standing out and actively fighting against the confederacy to award them the monetary value of what they had lost. if you lost something here, you could get it back. if you actively try to help us during the war, then we are willing to compensate you. dr. lee: absolutely. she is saying, what the commission -- the commission was seeking to reward people who had done something. think about this in the context of our conversation of the citizenship. the claims commissioners are looking for people who had stood up and said no, secession is wrong, who led resisted in description, enlistment in the confederate army. they were looking for people who
resisted these treasonous actions of confederates. they were looking for people who had fulfilled their obligations to the union. garland, even though he opposed secession, he was not their idea of a loyal citizen. what about john hock? the one who mentioned the pardon. what is his argument? why did he say he is loyal? matthew. >> he got a presidential pardon. didn't he take an oldath of loyalty after the war? dr. lee: there you see the democratic position. once a formal -- former confederate takes an oath of loyalty, he should be forgiven for has to transgressions against the union. john hawk argues he is loyal because he might have acted on
behalf of the confederacy but he took an otaath of allegiance. once a rebel, a rebel no longer. he swore this oath of allegiance to the union. the commission is looking at this, outraged. this is a man who had been a confederate and now he is saying he is a loyal southerner, loyal to the union, a man who had supported the confederacy. they are outraged by this idea that these confederate men are calling themselves loyal southerners. what about nancy hancock? what is going on with nancy hancock? i know you wanted to say something. go ahead. >> it didn't matter what she did. it mattered what her husband did. they asked her -- i think --
they had a different set of questions for women. what did your husband do during the war, what did he contribute to the union army, was it reflective of the woman herself? dr. lee: right. the commission seemed very intent on finding out whether or not her husband was loyal rather than if she was loyal. what did you want to add? >> they are looking for the man 's contributions to the war. he mentions the son volunteered for the army but was never taken. they focus on the sons and what the husband and the sons did. it was never about her. since the husband and son had passed, they did not get much. dr. lee: right. they were focusing on the husbands and the sons. why?
why are they focusing on the husbands and sons. they see the quintessential act of a loyal citizen as military service or voting. women can't do that. when they are assessing this woman's loyalty, her capacity to act as a loyal citizen, she could never offer any evidence that they regarded as definitive because of her position within society. it's interesting, in the commissioner's decision they say , -- what did they say at the outset? they say at the outset the , loyalty of her husband doesn't matter at all. we determine nancy hancock is loyal, and then talk about her husband and how her husband had been loyal, even though they just said his loyalty didn't matter. they focus on his loyalty
because they understood her as acquiring her loyalty through her husband. she didn't necessarily have loyalty in her own right. she acquired her loyalty from her husband. she could not act in the ways in which they expected of a loyal southerner. what about joseph bacon? how did he claim loyalty? what did the commissioners think about him? [inaudible] >> they just assumed slave sympathized with the union. there wasn't anything he could do to support a confederate or union cause. dr. lee: because he had been a slave.
how did you conclude that the commissioners assumed he had been loyal? >> it says that they believed former slaves -- dr. lee: it said it in the packet. all right. a good conclusion. if you look at the explanation as to why they found joseph aiken, who had been enslaved during the civil war -- if you look at the commissioners explanation of their decision, they ruled him loyal. the evidence proves it. and all the other examples of claims you looked at, the commissioner said he is loyal or disloyal, because of this, this, and this.
this is the evidence. for joseph bacon and many other black southerners they just assumed they were boy old by virtue of their enslaved to status. they didn't expect much of them. >> if women couldn't hold office and couldn't vote, and they weren't citizens, and their husband's views reflected onto them, why witness be the same for slaves because they also couldn't vote, why wouldn't they are masters actions reflect on to them? dr. lee: that's interesting. in some situations commissioners said this slave master was disloyal and we think the slaves sympathized with his master. sometimes it did happen. for the most part the commissioners believed african-americans sympathized with freedom. they understood the union cause would bring them their freedom and they supported the union cause. for the most part that was their assumption. they understood the master slave
relationship was not one that was harmonious, not in a way in which slaveholders understood their relationship. the commissioners didn't believe that slaves understood their masters and mistresses as a benevolent patriarch. the commissioners understood it was one that was adversarial and the slaves didn't agree with their masters and mistresses. let's look at a couple of claims. a couple of additional examples. to have a sense of how they cooperated, let's look at examples. as we have talked about, you have seven nurse who have definitions of loyalty that differ significantly from these commissioners, and commissioners who understood evidence of loyalty that was centered on these masculine acts expressions of citizenship.
how do you think commissioners ruled? how do you think they ruled? think about your how do you point. think they ruled? >> i would think they denied it because he didn't actively try and fight for the union or anything and it looks like he didn't want any part of the war from either side. so why would they say you are a loyal citizen if you didn't want it at all? dr. lee: right. you didn't fight for your country and you don't even know if you voted. i don't think you are a good citizen. that is with the commissioner thought. they ruled against him. they thought he was very ignorant. they thought he didn't know anything about what it meant to be a citizen. we have another example, a woman, eliza clark.
what do you think the commissioners would rule? you think no. why? >> she didn't do anything. dr. lee: she didn't do anything. eliza clark is saying i am a woman. i took no part in the war. she is saying what evidence do , you expect of me? i was a woman. i still am a woman. she said i would have contributed to the union as the fitted -- befitted my means and
circumstances appropriate for a woman. the commissioners ruled against her because she had not contributed to the union cause. >> did they count her husband or did she not have one? dr. lee: i don't remember. she did not have evidence. i think she is a widow. her husband had died. maybe if she had been able to present evidence her husband had been loyal -- but that would not have overcome the fact that she says i did not really have a role. even if her husband had proved he was loyal they would not have viewed her as loyal because she did not express a political opinion. go ahead. >> in the union wouldn't they have had to get rid of a lot of citizens? dr. lee: women were considered citizens but not citizens on par with white men. white men were considered ettore citizens because they could act on behalf of their government. >> they were proving loyalty or
this loyalty, why -- dr. lee: white woman would not be able to visit the loyalty. i think that is accurate because not as many people in the north -- not everyone had a direct role in supporting the war effort. that is an excellent point. these standards would have been tough for many northerners to meet as well. what is interesting about this conversation about the southern claims commission is that it highlights how some white northerners, even republicans start to become skeptical of loyalty as a clear indication of who made a good citizen. you have these southerners who appear before the commission and say i was a good, loyal citizen. they had supported the
confederacy, enlisted in the confederate army served for , three years, accepted positions in civil service bought confederate bonds. these republicans look at these southerners and become very skeptical of the claims to citizenship. what i want to emphasize here is how for many republicans although you have this amazing experiment in which they reconceptualize citizenship on a loyal basis as a way to include black men as full citizens with the right to vote and hold office, by the end of the 1870's there is a skepticism of loyalty. they see there are all these different definitions of loyalty and the people who could prove themselves as loyal were actually not the best citizens. they were people who hadn't been involved in the war.
they become really skeptical of loyalty as a means to limit the rights and privileges of american citizenship. in the brief experimental period that was congressional reconstruction you see an attempt to bring to power loyal southern men who had sacrificed for the union cause and displaced southern loyal men who had sought to destroy the union. reconstruction brought about this tremendous transformation in southern society in which black men who had been slaves were suddenly invested with political power. they could vote, they could hold office. they had just been considered slaves. a profound transformation. at the same time you had white men who had been
this franchised -- not disfranchised, but politically marginalized under antebellum society. people who had not had the opportunity, had not been politically empowered marginalized in the slaveholders 's republic. they are brought to power during reconstruction. as we will talk about congressional republicans pulled back from this radical experiment as loyalty increasingly seems an inadequate means to judge who makes a good citizen. i will see you all next week. look for an announcement from me on the reading assignment. i will send an announcement around on e-mail. if you have any questions let me know. have a good weekend. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> theodore