Transcript
Page 1: “An Alien and Inferior Race:” A Brief Examination of Reconstruction’s Antebellum Doom

“An Alien and Inferior Race:”A Brief Examination of Reconstruction’s Antebellum Doom

Wednesday, 10 September, 2008

Page 2: “An Alien and Inferior Race:” A Brief Examination of Reconstruction’s Antebellum Doom

1

Emancipation did not bring justice or equality for freedmen as antebellum

African-Americans expected. The form of liberation African-American slaves hoped to

see was doomed to failure before the Civil War began. While many Northerners may

have been anti-slavery, they were not necessarily pro-African-American. Neither before

nor after Reconstruction was the freedman seen as an equal of the white man.

Reconstruction failed freedmen because Northern commitment to African-Americans had

never been deep and wide. This was in part because while abolitionist sentiments were

common, racism was more common. The cause of the Civil War was not originally

abolition; the cause evolved from the preservation of the Union to a dual cause including

Emancipation. As shown in Boyer, et al, Enduring Vision, because the Civil War did not

begin as an endeavor to free the slaves and because racism was strong and nearly

ubiquitous in America, when Northerners began to find their own problems difficult to

bear, they had little stomach for continuing to tend to the southern problem.1

While the war’s original cause was not emancipation, slaves assumed the arrival

of Union troops meant freedom. But as Deborah White Gray illustrates in her work Ar’n’t

I a Woman?, freedom was not what Union troops initially brought, “Northern soldiers

actually returned fleeing blacks to their masters, and when Union generals issued orders

freeing all slaves in territories under their command, Lincoln overrode them.”2 As the

majority of Union soldiers did not enlist for the cause of slavery, this new cause was hard

for many to swallow. Northern racism ran deep, and fighting for freedom for African-

1Paul S. Boyer, Clifford E. Clark, Jr., Joseph F. Kett, Neal Salisbury, Harvard Sitkoff, and Nancy Woloch, eds., Enduring Vision, Volume II: Since 1865, 6th ed. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2000), 487.

2Deborah Gray White, Ar’n’t I a Woman?: Female Slaves in the Plantation South (New York: W.W. Norton & Company,1999), 165.

Page 3: “An Alien and Inferior Race:” A Brief Examination of Reconstruction’s Antebellum Doom

2

Americans was not an appealing prospect to all. In their essay “Unwelcome Allies: Billy

Yank and the Black Soldier,” Randall Miller and Jon Zophy record, “A New York

volunteer wrote to his parents that the ‘best way’ to settle the question of ‘what to do with

them darkies’ was to shoot them.”3 This illustrates the contempt in which many Union

troops held African-Americans, and such sentiments would not be easy to overcome.

Union soldiers were often a threat to the very people they were now to free. This was in

part because as White shows, many Union troops resented fighting for black Americans,

“Said one Ohioan before enlisting: ‘I don’t think enough of the Nigger to go and fight for

them. I would rather fight them.” 4 While this Ohioan may have confined himself to

words, some Union soldiers expressed their resentment in action as White reports, “At

Camp Nelson, Kentucky, in late 1864, while black men of the camp were on the

battlefield fighting Confederates, white soldiers leveled the makeshift shantytown erected

by black women to house their children and left four hundred people homeless in bitterly

cold weather.”5 These troops who were expected to protect or at least not to harm the

families of their black brothers in arms sent a message that they wanted no part with these

former slaves. Such messages were neither universal nor rare.

Rape of African-American women by Union soldiers was common. So common

was it that black women were known to make themselves appear “sick, old,” and

“disabled.” 6 This is not to imply that Union soldiers were in some way behaving out of

3Randall M. Miller and Jon W. Zophy, “Unwelcome Allies: Billy Yank and the Black Soldier,” Phylon, 39, no. 3 (3rd Qtr., 1978): 234. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/274519> (accessed 2 September, 2008).4

4Ibid.5

5White, Ar’n’t I a Woman?, 164-167. 6Ibid., 164.

Page 4: “An Alien and Inferior Race:” A Brief Examination of Reconstruction’s Antebellum Doom

3

the ordinary, or that they were evil men. This was normal behavior by soldiers around the

world in this era, and while the rape of newly emancipated slaves by their emancipators is

difficult to fathom in light of our modern notions of Emancipation as a primary and

original cause of the Civil War, it is more easily pictured in light of common among

Union soldiers as in the following story from White’s work:

Sam Word’s mother met her first Yankee soldier as he was in the process of stealing her quilts, walking out of the yard with them. “Why you nasty, stinking rascal,” she shouted, “you say you come down here to fight for the niggers, and now you’re stealing from ‘em.” His response no doubt reflected the feelings of most white Union soldiers, especially those who were drafted. “You’re a goddamm liar,” he retorted, “I’m fighting for $14 a month and the Union.”7

Such was the disconnect between Union troops’ ideas about their own function

and the ideas slaves held about the motivation of Union troops. This soldier had nothing

but contempt for the woman who believed he was there to free her, and he was not alone

among Northerners, many of whom enjoyed the saying:

To the flag we are pledged, all its foes we abhorAnd we ain’t for the nigger, but we are for the war.8

This sentiment was not unusual. Most Union soldiers were not

fighting for abolition. Mistrust of and dislike for African-Americans were

the norm. In “Unwelcome Allies,” Miller and Zophy recount how strong

racist sentiment in even sympathetic whites could be:

Even a man like James T. Ayers, an army recruiter who often expressed sympathetic feelings toward blacks, could write of blacks: “If they are set free

7Ibid.8

8Vincent Harding, “Soldiers of God’s Wrath,” in Major Problems in African American History: Volume 1: From Slavery to Freedom, 1619-1877, ed. Thomas C. Holt and Elsa Barkley Brown (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2000), 346.

Page 5: “An Alien and Inferior Race:” A Brief Examination of Reconstruction’s Antebellum Doom

4

they will Push into the Northern States and soon will be in every whole

and corner,” and the “Bucks” would soon enough “be wanting to galant our

Daughters around.” In a fury he concluded: “Dam the niggers I would Rather Blow there

brains out then they should do this and so would I.”9

How could Reconstruction possibly have succeeded in a climate like this, a climate

where even those who sympathized with the plight of slaves could flow with mistrust and

racism? In fact, it could not. Racism was part of the fabric of America. It shocks the

modern reader to find racism even at the highest levels of Union government.

Perhaps because of the glorification of Lincoln, a just glorification which links

him with Emancipation, it is not common knowledge that Lincoln was not always an

abolitionist, and he believed, “that blacks and whites could not live peaceably as equal

citizens in the United States....”10 These words express the cautious attitude toward

abolition held by many Northerners. Lincoln also respected states’ rights to the degree

that as White explains, “For a year and a half after the start of the war Lincoln held fast to

this position – that the war was necessary to preserve the Union. He had no ‘lawful right’

to interfere with slavery where it existed, he declared during his first inaugural address,

and ‘no inclination to do so.’”11 Lincoln’s actions in sending slaves back to their masters

at the beginning of the war were consistent with this early statement of his. These actions

were also consistent with the views of most Republicans not of the Radical camp.12

9Miller and Zophy, “Unwelcome Allies,” 235-236. 1

10Harding, “Soldiers of God’s Wrath,” 346. 1

11White, Ar’n’t I a Woman?, 163.1

12Boyer, et al, Enduring Vision, 493.

Page 6: “An Alien and Inferior Race:” A Brief Examination of Reconstruction’s Antebellum Doom

5

Somehow many in America have come to believe that the Civil War was always

about slavery and that Union soldiers by and large fought for freedom as much as for the

Union. This could not have been farther from the truth, and one could not have expected

men who despised the black man suddenly to embrace him. This was the case even

among Union soldiers who fought with black soldiers. Some did renounce their prejudice

after spending time among black troops, but others did not as Miller and Zophy describe:

The surprising fact revealed in a review of Union soldiers' diaries and letters is not

that so many held anti-Negro beliefs; rather, it is that these ideas persisted for so

long, that anti-Negro sentiments proved so resilient to a fair measurement of the

capacities of blacks, despite abundant evidence of their fortitude and loyalty.13

When one considers the world of the North in the era of

Reconstruction, one imagines a culture with patchy contact with

African-Americans. Returning troops would have had first-hand

experience among freedmen. They would have had more opportunity

to observe freedmen than most Northern civilians. This first-hand

experience and their status as veterans must have lent credibility and

weight to their negative impressions.

In 1867, Johnson’s public attitude about giving freedmen the vote was, “...it must

be acknowledged that in the progress of nations negroes have shown less capacity for

government than any other race of people. No independent government of any form has

13Miller and Zophy, “Unwelcome Allies,” 240.

Page 7: “An Alien and Inferior Race:” A Brief Examination of Reconstruction’s Antebellum Doom

6

ever been successful in their hands.”14 Johnson was no Reconstructionist; for him,

revenge against the aristocracy of the South was sufficient.15 While Johnson did not

represent the views of his party and was a thorn in the side of those who thought he might

stand up for Reconstruction, the fact that he could publicly say what he did indicates the

racist climate of the era. When reading how a prominent Alabaman referred to freedmen

as “an alien and inferior race” in a petition to Congress, the modern reader may be

shocked by the easy use of racial language in this era.16 Granted the man was not a

Northerner, nor a Republican, and his constituency comprised former slave owners, but

that he could call African-Americans “an alien and inferior race” in an official plea for

help, that he would use such language in a petition designed to persuade those who

supposedly stood on the side of Reconstruction indicates that Northerners by and large

must have been racist as well. It is illustrative that an Alabaman would select this

particular language to persuade people who stood on the side of freedmen, and that he

shows that he did not expect his language to offend even those on the side of freedmen.

Indeed we know from Boyer that, “Republican leaders and voters generally agreed with

Southern Democrats that blacks, although worthy of freedom, were inferior to whites.” 17

So it is not inconsistent that this Alabaman might have believed that his language would

not only not offend those on the side of Reconstruction but perhaps assist him in bringing

14Andrew Johnson, 1867, in Enduring Voices, Volume II: From 1865 From 1865, Fourth Edition, edited by Paul S. Boyer, Clifford E. Clark, Jr., Joseph F. Kett, Neal Salisbury, Harvard Sitkoff, and Nancy Woloch (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2000), 5.1

15Boyer, et al, Enduring Vision, 470. 16Petition and Memorial File in Retrieving the American Past: HIST 157: United

States History since 1865, eds. Saul Cornell, David Staley, Meredith Clark-Wiltz, Ann Heiss, et al (Boston: Pearson Custom Publishing, 2008), 10-11.

1

17Boyer, et al, Enduring Vision, 493.

Page 8: “An Alien and Inferior Race:” A Brief Examination of Reconstruction’s Antebellum Doom

7

them over to his way of thinking, and it uncovers the racism that must have been virtually

ubiquitous in the United States whether North or South.18

Racism in the western world was reinforced in this era by the new concept of

Social Darwinism, a distortion of Charles Darwin’s theory of Natural Selection. Social

Darwinism held that those of African descent were at the bottom rung of humanity in

terms of evolution, and as this pseudoscience played a role in reinforcing racism on the

world scale, it also played a role in the United States in deepening negative sentiment

toward African-Americans during and after Reconstruction.19 However Social Darwinism

was only reinforcing what already existed in the psyche of America, that black people

were inferior to white.20 This derived in part from centuries of literature beginning with

Greek and Roman observations of Africans, such as the Greek expression of futility, “to

wash an Ethopian white.”21 This saying emphasized the inescapability of color and facial

structure, which grew to be indelibly associated with inferiority in succeeding

generations. As Joseph Harris argues in Africans and Their History, throughout western

history when Africans shed the mantle of “savage” for that of civilized man, they were

still viewed as inferior because unlike a white man for whom, “there remained no visible

label of inferiority, whereas the blackness of Africans became identified with and

lingered in the minds of Europeans as a badge of primitiveness.”22 Viewing black

1

18Saul Cornell, David Staley, Meredith Clark-Wiltz, Ann Heiss, et al, eds., Retrieving the American Past: HIST 157: United States History since 1865 (Boston: Pearson Custom Publishing, 2008), 11.

19Joseph E. Harris, Africans and Their History, 2nd ed. (New York: Meridian, 1998), 12.

20Boyer, et al, Enduring Vision, 493. 2

21Harris, Africans and Their History, 3. 2

Page 9: “An Alien and Inferior Race:” A Brief Examination of Reconstruction’s Antebellum Doom

8

freedmen as hopelessly inferior, Northerners in the last quarter of the nineteenth century

began to lose patience with Reconstruction. Faced with problems of their own and tired

of a divided Union, they lost the sense of obligation to a cause they felt was not their

own, to help a people they viewed as inferior and for whom they felt freedom was

sufficient.

To boil the failure of Reconstruction down to racism alone would be incorrect, for

there was rampant corruption in the Republican governments of the South, and

Northerners were weary of a seemingly interminable problem. Corruption was only one

of many other causes for the failure of Reconstruction, for the North was battling

corruption problems of its own. States’ rights too factored into the doom of

Reconstruction. Most Americans believed in states’ rights. For them, continued

“bayonette rule” was not acceptable as Northern voters believed, “that Reconstruction

had achieved its goal: blacks had been enfranchised and could manage for themselves

from now on.”23 Just as states’ rights and corruption figured into the demise of

Reconstruction, racism too figured into Reconstruction’s doom, for in the main, voters in

the North held “that blacks, although worthy of freedom, were inferior to whites.”24

Hoping to bring an end to regional disunity and strife, Republicans were ready to move

on before the business of Reconstruction was finished.25 Northerners did recognize how

empty freedom was for African-Americans, and that this freedom was worse in many

ways than slavery. Many Northerners did support Reconstruction initially, in particular

22Ibid., 4. 23Boyer, et al, Enduring Vision, 489.2

24Ibid., 493.2

25Ibid.

Page 10: “An Alien and Inferior Race:” A Brief Examination of Reconstruction’s Antebellum Doom

9

the educational advances for African-Americans in the South.26 While this support was

strong, when the North felt the sting of its own problems, one could not expect such

support to last forever in the face of the prevailing view that freedom was enough for an

‘inferior’ people.27

Certainly one can overstate the influence of a less than total Northern antebellum

commitment to African-Americans. The conviction of states’ rights was enormously

important and figured prominently in the 1876 election.28 But Radical Republicans were

so called because they did not represent the feelings of most Republicans. When times

are tough, lofty ideals can slip away. This is especially true when such ideals do not

directly benefit those paying for them and when there is an undercurrent of contempt for

the beneficiaries. Northern antebellum racism doomed Reconstruction before it began,

and once African-Americans were technically free, there was little willingness on the part

of the average Northern voter to stomach the ulcer of Reconstruction that, for the sake of

a so-called ‘inferior’ race, continued to separate the North and the South.

2

26Robert C. Lieberman, “The Freedmen’s Bureau and the Politics of Institutional Structure.” Social Science History, 18, no. 3 (Autumn, 1994): 423. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/1171498> (accessed 2 September, 2008).

27Boyer, et al, eds., Enduring Vision, 493. 28Ibid., 495.

Page 11: “An Alien and Inferior Race:” A Brief Examination of Reconstruction’s Antebellum Doom

10

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Boyer, Paul S., Clifford E. Clark, Jr., Joseph F. Kett, Neal Salisbury, Harvard Sitkoff, and Nancy Woloch, eds. Enduring Vision, Volume II: Since 1865, 6th ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2000.

Boyer, Paul S., Clifford E. Clark, Jr., Joseph F. Kett, Neal Salisbury, Harvard Sitkoff, and Nancy Woloch, eds. Enduring Voices, Volume II: From 1865 From 1865, 4th ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2000.

Civil Rights Cases, 1883. In Retrieving the American Past: HIST 157: United States History since 1865, edited by Saul Cornell, David Staley, Meredith Clark-Wiltz, Ann Heiss, et al, 18. Boston: Pearson Custom Publishing, 2008.

Cornell, Saul David Staley, Meredith Clark-Wiltz, Ann Heiss, et al, eds. Retrieving the American Past: HIST 157: United States History since 1865. Boston: Pearson Custom Publishing, 2008.

Forten, Charlotte. Diary. In Major Problems in African American History: Volume 1: From Slavery to Freedom, 1619-1877, edited by Thomas C. Holt and Elsa Barkley Brown, 301-303. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2000.

Harris, Joseph E. Africans and Their History, 2nd ed. New York: Meridian, 1998.

Johnson, Andrew. 1867. In Enduring Voices, Volume II: From 1865 From 1865, 4th ed., edited by Paul S. Boyer, Clifford E. Clark, Jr., Joseph F. Kett, Neal Salisbury, Harvard Sitkoff, and Nancy Woloch, 5. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2000.

Lieberman, Robert C. “The Freedmen’s Bureau and the Politics of Institutional Structure.” Social Science History, 18, no. 3 (Autumn, 1994): 405-437. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/1171498> (accessed 2 September, 2008).

Miller, Randall M., and Jon W. Zophy, “Unwelcome Allies: Billy Yank and the Black Soldier,” Phylon, 39, no. 3 (3rd Qtr., 1978): 234-240. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/274519> (accessed 2 September, 2008).

Petition and Memorial File, Records of the House of Representatives, 40th Congress, Record Group 233, National Archives, Washington, D.C. In Retrieving the American Past: HIST 157: United States History since 1865, edited by Saul Cornell, David Staley, Meredith Clark-Wiltz, Ann Heiss, et al, 10-11. Boston: Pearson Custom Publishing, 2008.

Slaughter-House Cases, 1873. In Retrieving the American Past: HIST 157: United States History since 1865, edited by Saul Cornell, David Staley, Meredith Clark-Wiltz,

Page 12: “An Alien and Inferior Race:” A Brief Examination of Reconstruction’s Antebellum Doom

11

Ann Heiss, et al, 16-18. Boston: Pearson Custom Publishing, 2008.

White, Deborah Gray. Ar’n’t I a Woman?: Female Slaves In the Plantation South. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1999.


Top Related