Civil War and Reconstruction in AlabamaFleming, Walter L. (Walter Lynwood)
History
Civil War and Reconstruction in Alabama
Fleming, Walter L. (Walter Lynwood)
Alabama -- History -- Civil War, 1861-1865; Reconstruction (U.S. history, 1865-1877) -- Alabama
Owing to the important bearing upon the problem of Reconstruction of the
disputes between the President and Congress in regard to the status of the
seceded states, it will be of interest to examine the various plans and
theories for restoring the Union. From the beginning of the war the
question of the status of the seceded states was discussed both in
Congress and out, and with the close of the war it became of the gravest
importance. There was nothing in the Constitution to guide the President
or Congress, though each sought to base a policy on that ancient
instrument. Many questions confronted them. Were the states in the Union
or out? If in the Union, what rights had they? If out of the Union, were
they conquered territories subject to no law but the will of the United
States government, or were they United States territory with rights under
the Constitution? Must they be reconstructed or restored, and who was to
begin the movement--the people of the states, Congress, or the President?
Were the states in their corporate capacity, or the people as individuals,
responsible for secession? What punishment was to be inflicted, and on
whom or what must it fall--the people or the states? Who or what decides
who are the political people of the state? Exactly what was a state? Was
the Union the old Union of Washington, or a new one? Congress and the
President could never agree in their answers to these questions.[847]
Conservative Theories
As to the status of the seceded states and the proper method of
Reconstruction, all interested persons had theories, but the only one
which was logical and consistent with regard to the "Constitution as it
was" was the so-called Southern theory. This theory was that secession
having failed, state sovereignty was at an end; the doctrine was
worthless; secession was a nullity, and therefore the states were not out
of the Union; the state was indestructible. The war was prosecuted against
individuals and not against states, and the consequences must fall upon
individuals; the states had all the rights they ever possessed, but, being
out of their proper relation to the Union, its officers must take the oath
of allegiance to the United States government, representatives must be
sent to Congress, and the people must submit to the authority of the
government. Then the Union would be restored as it was.[848] At the fall
of the Confederacy the general belief was that restoration would proceed
along these lines. Many of the higher officials of the United States army
were of the same opinion, and on this theory the celebrated
Johnston-Sherman convention was drawn up by General Sherman, which
promised amnesty to the people and recognition of the state governments as
soon as the officials should have taken the oath of allegiance.[849]
Likewise, in the Southwest, General Dick Taylor, with the approval of
General Canby, advised the governors of the states in his department to
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account