Legree: "I'll conquer ye or kill ye! -- one or t'other..."

Tom: "Mas'r, if you was sick, or in trouble, or dying, and I could save ye, I'd give ye my heart's blood. And, if taking every drop of blood in this poor old body would save your precious soul, I'd give 'em freely, as the Lord gave His for me. O, Mas'r! Don't bring this great sin on your soul! It will hurt you more than 'twill me! Do the worst you can my troubles'll be over soon. But, if ye don't repent, yours won't never end!"

1. What emotions do you think Stowe wanted her readers to feel?
2. How would Southerners who owned slaves react to this story?
3. How could antislavery groups use this as propaganda?
4. Uncle Tom used a little propaganda technique himself in his argument with Legree. What did he say that could be classified as propaganda?
5. What kind of relationship did Uncle Tom have with his master? Would this be considered a typical slave-master relationship? Explain.


GROWING DIVISIONS
Although the North and South were both part of the United States, they had grown to be very different. These great differences caused the two sections to view almost every event and issue in opposite ways.

Tariff of Abominations and South Carolina's nullification threats (pp.336-338)
Missouri Compromise
Wilmot Proviso
Compromise of 1850
Uncle Tom’s Cabin
Kansas-Nebraska Act
Changing Political Parties
Bleeding Kansas
Attack on Charles Sumner
John Brown
Lincoln-Douglas Debates
John Brown's raid and death
Election of Abraham Lincoln
Attempts at Compromise
Attack on Fort Sumter

SECESSION
1. Define SECEDE
2. List the states that seceded and their dates of secession:
3. What government did these states form and who was their new President?
4. Identify and explain the arguments for secession and indicate the validity of these arguments.
5. Explain the reactions of those in the North to the secession of the southern states.
REACTIONS OF THE PUBLIC
REACTIONS OF PRESIDENT BUCHANAN
REACTIONS OF CONGRESS
6. When Lincoln took office, how did he deal with the southern states who had seceded?
7. How did Lincoln deal with the slave states who had not yet seceded?

COMPARING RESOURCES OF THE NORTH AND SOUTH
homework
Complete the chart below by describing the resources, strengths, and weaknesses for each side.
Farmland
Railroad Track
Manufactured Goods
Factories/ Technology
Workers/Skills
Population
Military
Leaders
Attitude/ Expectations

PEOPLE OF THE CIVIL WAR
Identify and describe each person. Include what contributions the person made to the war and which side they supported.

Robert Anderson
Jefferson Davis
Edwin Stanton
Robert E. Lee
Thomas Jackson
George McClellan
Ulysses S. Grant
Dorothea Dix
Clara Barton
Mathew Brady
George Meade
George Pickett
William Tecumseh Sherman
John Wilkes Booth

BATTLES OF THE CIVIL WAR
Describe the following battles. Include the date, length, significance, major officers, and winner.

Bull Run (1st) - July, 1861
Ft. Henry & Ft. Donelson - February, 1862
Potomac Campaign - March, 1862
Monitor vs. Merrimac - March, 1862
Shiloh - April, 1862
New Orleans - April, 1862
Bull Run (2nd) - August, 1862
Antietam - September, 1862
Fredericksburg - December, 1862
Chancellorsville - May, 1863
Gettysburg - July, 1863
Vicksburg - July, 1863
Fort Wagner - Summer, 1863
Chickamauga Creek / Chattanooga - Fall, 1863
Atlanta & Sherman's March to the sea - September, 1864
Wilderness / Spotsylvania / Cold Harbor - Fall, 1864
Petersburg Siege - 1864-1865

CIVIL WAR MAP
homework
On this map: (1) label states and color code North and South, (2) label Appomattox Court House, (3) identify the location of all the battles listed on the previous page, and (4) draw an approximate line of Sherman's March

 THE CIVIL WAR AS A UNIQUE WAR
In the space provided below, create an idea map that demonstrates how the Civil War was different from wars that the United States had previously been involved with. Illustrate key concepts.

DETERMINING RELEVANCE:
POLITICAL DECISIONS DURING THE CIVIL WAR
homework
In this worksheet you will determine which pieces of information best support the historian's viewpoints that you think are most convincing. Read the information below and then use it to evaluate the different historians' viewpoints on the Emancipation Proclamation and England's role in the Civil War. For the purpose of this lesson, assume that all the information below is true.
Relevant Information
a. England needed Southern cotton to keep its textile mills going. When cotton was cut off by the American blockade, unemployment in England went up.
b. The border states (Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri) sided with the North early in the war, partly because the North had said it was fighting to preserve the Union, not to abolish slavery. Many people in the border states owned slaves.
c. Even monarchies have difficulty fighting unpopular wars.
d. The morale of Southern soldiers was high because they believed they were protecting their homeland from invasion.
e. The North was more industrialized than the South.
f. The Battle of Antietam, fought in September 1862, was a great Northern victory strategically. Although it was a draw on the battlefield, the South had to withdraw afterward.
g. Not many people in the North were abolitionists, and even fewer abolitionistslived in the border states.
h. The South only had to fight to a draw in order to win the war. If the North could not defeat them then the Confederate states would be independent.
i. England made ships for the South, which the South used to run the Northern blockade.
j. By 1862 Northern soldiers had lost enthusiasm for fighting to save the Union. Some soldiers felt the Union wasn't worth dying for.
k. Monarchies are usually opposed to rebellion, such as the Southern rebellion against the Union in the Civil War.
l. Northern Democrats felt that slavery was not the issue over which the war should be fought.
m. The South, on a whole, had better military leaders than the North.
n. Most people throughout the world, including the states that stayed in the Union, England, and France, opposed slavery.
o. The English needed Northern wheat during the 1860s because they were suffering from a food shortage.
p. Slavery had once been allowed in the British empire, but in 1833 it had been abolished.
q. The South won the Battle of Chancellorsville in the spring of 1863.
r. Aristocrats in England and France were sympathetic to the South and were important in persuading their governments to consider siding with the South in 1862.
s. Abolitionists were intensely devoted to their cause (ending slavery).
t. France was quite interested in increasing its influence in Mexico in the 1860s.
u. The South won a decisive victory at Bull Run in August 1862.
v. Workers in England disliked the South because they hated the idea of slavery.
w. England was a monarchy.
Why did President Lincoln issue the Emancipation Proclamation? In December 1862, President Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, which basically said that slaves were freed in the states that were still in rebellion against the Union (that is, in the Confederate states only). Which of the following is the best explanation for why Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation? Circle the historian that you think offers the best explanation and then state the reasons for your choice, citing items from the relevant information. Use complete sentences in your paragraph response.

Historian A
Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation to keep abolitionists supporting the Union cause and to raise Northern morale.

Historian B
Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation to raise the Northern morale, use Northern industry to its fullest advantage, and keep the border states on the Northern side.

Historian C
Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation to get England and France to remain neutral and to capitalize on [make use of] the Northern victory at Antietam.

Historian D
Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation to get England and France to remain neutral and to raise Northern morale.

Historian E
Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation to get England and France to remain neutral, to neutralize the advantage of Southern military leaders, and to embarrass England because England had once allowed slavery.

Why didn't England side with the South? During the Civil War, the South tried to get England to side with it openly against the North. England gave some support, and considered siding with the Confederacy, but it never did actually ally itself with the South. Which of the following is the best explanation of England's reasons for not siding with the South? Circle the historian that you think offers the best explanation and then state the reasons for your choice, citing items from the relevant information. Use complete sentences in your paragraph response.

Historian A
No country wants to join sides with a loser, and after the Battle of Antietam England hesitated to side with the South. Then, after the Emancipation Proclamation, England found it difficult to join the South because so many of its citizens would have been opposed to fighting to defend slavery.

Historian B
England's monarchy was leaning toward the South, but when it appeared that the South might not win, the monarchy decided to stay out of the war. After all, the North was stronger industrially.

Historian C
England needed Northern wheat more than it needed Southern cotton. In addition, Northern morale was lower than Southern morale and unemployment in England wasn't very high. Thus the English decided not to help the South in the War.

Historian D
England did not need Southern cotton that badly. When the Southerners won the second Battle of Bull Run, England didn't think that the South needed much help. Then, when Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, England couldn't side with the South because so many English citizens would have been opposed to fighting to defend slavery.

 THE EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION
homework
The Emancipation Proclamation changed the goals of the Union in the Civil War as well as the course of the nation's history. President Lincoln announced his intentions with the Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation in September of 1962, and then issued the Proclamation itself in January, 1963. The excerpts below are from the Proclamation itself, an interpretation by Reverend Garrison Frazier speaking for black church official in Savannah in January 1965, and an interpretation by Allan Nevins, a current historian in his book The War for the Union. Read all three excerpts and answer the questions that follow.

I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority and government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion, do, on this 1st day of January, in the year of our Lord 1863, ...designate as the states and parts of states wherein the people thereof ... are this day in rebellion against the United States the following, to wit:
Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana (except the parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John,...), Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkely, Accomac,...), and which excepted parts are for the present left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.
And, by virtue of the power and for the purpose aforesaid, I do order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said designated states and parts of states are, and henceforward shall be, free; and that the executive government of the United States,including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons.
And I further declare and make known that such persons of suitable condition will be received into the armed service of the United States.
--Abraham Lincoln

So far as I understand President Lincoln's Proclamation to the rebellious States, it is, that if they lay down their arms and submit to the laws of the United States by the 1st of January, 1863, all should be well, but if they did not, then all the slaves in the rebel States should be free. The way we can best take care of ourselves is to have land, and work the land by our labor. To assist the Government, the young men should enlist in the service of the government. The object of the war was not, at first, to give the slaves their freedom, but... to bring the rebellious States back into the Union. Afterwards, knowing the value that was set on the slaves by the rebels, the President thought that his Proclamation would stimulate them to lay down their arms, reduce them to obedience, and help to bring back the rebel States. Their not doing so had made the freedom of slaves a part of the war.
--Reverend Garrison Frazier

The proclamation appeared in the morning newspapers September 23, 1862. Its essence lay in the third paragraph. Lincoln's sagacity did not fail him in the form of the document. It was an exercise of war powers; its main intent was not the liberation of a race (though he was fully conscious of this aspect) but the furtherance of the war effort and the preservation of the Union; and he did well to couch it in cold legal phraseology, direct and deadly as a bullet...
Since the proclamation was an exercise of the war powers, what its legal effect would be after the war ceased was uncertain.... But the proclamation had three immediate, positive, and visible effects. First, every forward step the Union armies took after January 1, 1863, now became a liberating step. Every county in Mississippi, Alabama, Virginia, and the Carolinas that passed under military control was... legally a free-soil county.... In the second place, the percolating news of the proclamation encouraged slaves to escape.... And in the third place, the proclamation irrevocably committed the United States, before the gaze of the world, to the early eradication of slavery from those wide regions where it was most deeply rooted; after which, all men knew, it could never survive on the borders. There could be no turning back!
--Allan Nevins
1. How does Lincoln describe the Proclamation? Where does he get the power to issue such a proclamation?
2. Why does the Proclamation exclude parts of Louisiana and Virginia?
3. What could the southern states have done to keep their slaves?
4. How did the Proclamation immediately affect:
slaves in states loyal to the union?
slaves in states in rebellion?
5. What did Rev. Frazier (and Lincoln by implication) think the slaves should do?
6. It was observed that "the Proclamation emancipated slaves where it could not reach them, and left them in bondage where it could have set them free." Explain the meaning of this statement. Why did Lincoln move cautiously on the slavery question?

POEMS BY WALT WHITMAN
homework
Walt Whitman is considered by many people the greatest American poet of the 1800s. His collection of poems, Leaves of Grass, which contains the famous poem "Song of Myself," celebrates democracy, equality, and the wide diversity of American life. Whitman wrote a collection of poems about the Civil War, called Drum Taps. A strong believer in the Union cause, Whitman concluded the collection with several poems written in honor of Abraham Lincoln, including the two here.

O Captain! My Captain!

O Captain! my Captain! our fearful trip is done,
The ship has weather'd every rack, the prize we sought is won,
The port is near, the bells I hear, the people all exulting,
While follow eyes the steady keel, the vessel grim and daring;
But O heart! heart! heart!
O the bleeding drops of red,
Where on the deck my Captain lies,
Fallen cold and dead.

O Captain! my Captain! rise up and hear the bells;
Rise up -- for you the flag is flung -- for you the bugle trills,
For you bouquets and ribbon'd wreaths -- for you the shores a-crowding,
For you they call, the swaying mass, their eager faces turning;
Here Captain! dear father!
This arm beneath your head!
It is some dream that on the deck
You've fallen cold and dead.

My Captain does not answer, his lips are pale and still,
My father does not feel my arm, he has no pulse nor will,
The ship is anchor'd safe and sound, its voyage closed and done,
From fearful trip the victor ship comes in with object won;
Exult O shores, and ring O bells!
But I with mournful tread,
Walk the deck my Captain lies
Fallen cold and dead.

This Dust Was Once the Man

This dust was once the man,
Gentle, plain, just and resolute, under whose cautious hand,
Against the foulest crime in history known in any land or age,
Was saved the Union of these States.

1. What specific event is Whitman commemorating in these poems? How does he feel about this event?
2. In "O Captain! My Captain!" what is the "fearful trip" Whitman refers to in the first line?
3. What is "the prize we sought"?
4. Why is the death of the Captain at this time especially tragic and ironic? How does Whitman convey this?
5. Judging from "O Captain! My Captain!" do you think Whitman was optimistic about reconciliation between North and South? Why?
6. In "This Dust Was Once the Man," what do you think Whitman means by "the foulest crime in history known in any land or age"? Explain with detail.
7. How do you think these poems would have been received in the North? the South?

JOHN BROWN:  MARTYR OR TERRORIST?
homework
On October 16, 1859, John Brown led a party of approximately 21 men into Harper’s Ferry, Virginia. Encountering no resistance, Brown’s men seized the federal arsenal, an armory, and a rifle works. Brown then sent out several detachments to round up hostages and liberate slaves. As news of the raid spread, angry townspeople and local militia companies cut off Brown’s escape routes and trapped his men in the armory. Two days later, U.S. Marines led by Colonel Robert E. Lee arrived at Harper's Ferry. The marines stormed the arsenal. Five of Brown’s party escaped, ten were killed, and seven, including Brown, were taken as prisoner. A week later, Brown was put on trial in Virginia court, even though his attack had occurred on federal property. He was found guilty of treason, conspiracy, and murder, and was sentenced to die on the gallows. The trial's high point came at the end when Brown was allowed to make a five-minute speech, which helped convince many Northerners that Brown was a martyr to the cause of freedom. A small broadside with a lithograph signature of Brown was produced by the Liberator, reprinting his address to the Virginia Court before sentencing. Brown denies wanting to murder or cause an uprising. He argues that his raid on Harper's Ferry was just and aligned with the teachings of the Bible.

EXCERPT FROM BROWN”S SPEECH:

I have, may it please the Court, a few words to say.

 In the first place, I deny every thing but what I have already admitted, of a design on my part to free Slaves. I intended certainly, to have made a clean thing of that matter, as I did  last winter, when I went into Missouri, and there took Salves, without the snapping of a gun on either side, moving then through the country, and finally leaving them in Canada. I was desired to have dome the same thing again, on a much larger scale. That was all I intended. I never did intend murder, or treason, or destruction of property, or to excite or incite Slaves to rebellion, or to make insurrection.

 I have another objection, and that is, that it is unjust that I should suffer such a penalty. Had I interfered in the manner, and which I admit has fairly proved, for I admire the truthfulness and candor of the greater portion of the witnesses who have testified in this case – had I interfered in behalf of the Rich, the Powerful, the Intelligent, the so-called Great, or in behalf of any friends, either father, mother, brother, sister, wife, or  children, or any that class, and suffered and sacrificed what I have in this interference, it would have been all right. Every man in this Court would have deemed it an act  worthy a reward, rather than punishment.

 Now if it is deemed necessary that I should forfeit my life for the furtherance of the ends of justice and MINGLE MY BLOOD FURTHER WITH THE BLOOD OF MY CHILDREN, and with the blood of millions in slave country whose rights are disregarded by the wicked, cruel, and unjust enactments – I summit; so LET IT BE DONE.

1. Describe the tone of John Brown’s Address to the Virginia Court.

2. What does Brown admit to? What does he deny?

3. Why was he tried in a Virginia Court and not a federal court?

4. Are Brown’s actions at Harper’s Ferry justified? Explain your viewpoint.

5. Was Brown a martyr to the cause of freedom or a domestic terrorist? Explain your view.

THE CONSTITUTION AND THE EXTENSION OF SLAVERY
homework
The question of the extension of slavery finally reached its ultimate conclusion with the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860. By the time Lincoln took office for his first term, the South's secession from the Union had already begun. Lincoln's election in fact had been the immediate cause of secession. In his first inaugural address, Lincoln addressed the constitutional issue of the extension of slavery.

All profess to be content in the Union if all Constitutional rights can be maintained. Is it true, then, that any right, plainly written in the Constitution, has been denied? I think not. Happily the human mind is so constituted that no party can reach to the audacity of doing this. Think, if you can, of a single instance in which a plainly written provision of the Constitution has ever been denied. If by the mere force of numbers a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly written Constitutional right, it might, in a moral point of view, justify revolution--certainly would if such a right were a vital one. But such is not our case. All the vital rights of minorities and of individuals are so plainly assured to them by affirmations and negations, guaranties and prohibitions, in the Constitution, that controversies never arise concerning them. But no organic law can ever be framed with a provision specifically applicable to every question which may occur in practical administration. No foresight can anticipate, nor any document of reasonable length contain, express provisions for all possible questions. Shall fugitives from labor be surrendered by national or State authority? The Constitution does not expressly say. May Congress prohibit slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say. MUST Congress protect slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say.

 From questions of this class spring all our constitutional controversies, and we divide upon them into majorities and minorities. If the minority will not acquiesce, the majority must, or the government must cease. There is no other alternative; for continuing the government is acquiescence on one side or the other.

 If a minority in such case will secede rather than acquiesce, they make a precedent which in turn will divide and ruin them; for a minority of their own will secede from them whenever a majority refuses to be controlled by such minority. For instance, why may not any portion of a new confederacy a year or two hence arbitrarily secede again, precisely as portions of the present Union now claim to secede from it? All who cherish disunion sentiments are now being educated to the exact temper of doing this.

1. Abraham Lincoln states that the founding fathers could not foresee every problem that might arise. Why do you think that the problems regarding the extension of slavery were not addressed by the founding fathers?

2. Should the issue of the extension of slavery have been addressed by constitutional amendment from 1788 up until Lincoln's election? Explain why or why not?

3. Should constitutional issues be decided upon the will of the majority? Explain your viewpoint.

4. Do you agree or disagree with Lincoln that secession is not a good reaction for a minority to use when they cannot win on their point of view? Explain your viewpoint.

5. If a minority must acquiesce to the opinion of the majority on a constitutional issue, what methods can they use to protect their rights?

DEVASTATION IN THE SOUTH
homework
In this worksheet you will analyze the condition of the South immediately after the Civil War. Three extracts from eyewitness accounts of the South after the Civil War appear below. The first two refer to the situation in South Carolina and the third describes conditions in Virginia. Read the extracts carefully and answer the questions that follow.

A. [The countryside] looked for many miles like a broad black streak of ruin and desolation..., the fences all gone; lonesome smoke stacks, surrounded by dark heaps of ashes and cinders, marking the spots where human habitations had stood; the fields along the road wildly overgrown by weeds, with here and there a sickly looking patch of cotton or corn cultivated by negro squatters. In the city of Columbia...a thin fringe of houses encircled a confused mass of charred ruins of dwellings and business buildings, which had been destroyed by a sweeping conflagration.

B. Not far distant were the estates of a large proprietor and a well-known family, rich and distinguished for generations. The slaves are gone. The family is gone. A single scion of the house remains, and he peddles tea by the pound and molasses by the quart, on a corner of the old homestead, to the former slaves of the family and thereby earns his livelihood.

C. From Winchester to Harrisonburg scarce a coop, fence, chicken, horse, cow, or pig was in sight.... Extreme destitution prevailed throughout the entire valley.... The country between Washington and Richmond was...like a desert.

1. What probably caused the destruction described in extracts A and B?
2. Why was the country between Washington and Richmond like a desert?
3. How had most of the land described been used before the war?
4. What would need to be done before the land could be used again?
5. What was the fate of the planter described in extract B?
6. What can you learn about the fate of freed slaves from the accounts?

THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF ANDREW JOHNSON
homework
After President Johnson ignored the Tenure of Office Act in removing Secretary of War Stanton against the wishes of Congress, Radicals in the House decided to impeach the President. This was voted by the House, and the charges were then tried by the Senate, with the Chief Justice presiding. The following is a description of the trial by one of Johnson's military aides.

When, from my seat in the gallery, I looked down on the Senate chamber, I had a moment of almost terror. It was not because of the great assemblage; it was rather in the thought that one could feel in the mind of every man and woman there that for the first time in the history of our country a President was on trial for more than his life.
There was a painful silence when the counsel for the President filed in and took their places. (The President was not present.) The prosecution managers were already in their seats. Benjamin Butler arose to make the opening address. It was a violent attack on the President.
The trial lasted three weeks. The President never appeared. He remained absolutely calm through it all, doing routine work in the White House. As the trial proceeded, the conviction grew with me that the weight of evidence and of constitutional principle lay with the defense. The prosecution showed much personal feeling and prejudice rather than proof. Every appeal that could be made to the passions of the time was utilized....
Long before the final ballot, it became known how most of the men would probably vote. Toward the end the doubtful ones had narrowed down to one man -- Senator Edmund G. Ross of Kansas.
Kansas was, from inception and history, abolitionist and radical, and it was supposed that Senator Ross would vote with the Radicals. But it became known that he was doubtful; it was charged that he had been subject to personal influence--feminine influence. His cohorts in the Senate and House bore down upon him with party discipline and then ridicule. Ross refused to make an announcement of his policy.
On May 16, 1868, the vote was taken. The floor and galleries were crowded. The Chief Justice directed that the roll be called. The clerk called out: "Mr. Anthony." The Chief Justice called out: "Mr. Anthony, how say you? Is the respondent, Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, guilty or not guilty of a high misdemeanor as charged in this article?"
"Guilty," answered Mr. Anthony. A sigh passed over the crowd. A two-thirds vote of 36 to 18 was necessary to convict. The same form was maintained with each Senator in turn. Senator Ross was the sphinx; no one knew his position.
The tension grew as Ross was reached. When the clerk called it, and the Senator stood forth, the crowd held its breath. "Not guilty!" called the Kansas Senator.
It was like a boiling over of a caldron. The Radicals turned to Ross in rage. When the vote was over -- 35 to 19 -- there was a wild outburst, chiefly groans of anger and disappointment. The President's friends were in a minority.

1. Had President Johnson been removed from office by impeachment, what would have been the impact upon future American history?
2. Should the trial have been closed to the public? Why?
3. Had Johnson been impeached, who would have become President? (careful on this)
4. What are the advantages and disadvantages of impeachment as a means of removing a President from office? What other ways might be alternatives?

GREAT DEBATE: DOES THE PRESIDENT OR CONGRESS HAVE THE
POWER TO RECONSTRUCT THE UNION?
homework
In 1865, the major task facing the nation was to restore the union of states that had been torn apart by the Civil War. Presidents Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson believed that the South should be brought back into the Union as quickly and harmoniously as possible. Many members of Congress, on the other hand, thought that the southern states should be punished severely for having left the Union. The sharp disagreement sparked a fierce national debate about the right way to reconstruct the Union.

Long before the end of the Civil War, President Lincoln had begun to think of how best to bring the seceded states back into the Union. He believed that no state had a right, under the Constitution, to leave the Union, for any reason. The Confederacy, he argued, was not an association of states that had seceded but a group of individuals who had rebelled against federal authority. He worked out a plan of Reconstruction that would quickly restore good relations with the states of the South while penalizing those individuals who had taken a leading part in the rebellion.
When Lincoln was assassinated on April 14, 1865, Vice President Andrew Johnson, a Tennessean, succeeded to the Presidency. Johnson, who had been the only southern senator to refuse to support the Confederacy, shared Lincoln's view of Reconstruction. A small group of wealthy southerners had pushed the common citizens into secession, he maintained. These former leaders of the Confederacy should be barred from politics until they showed publicly that they regretted their actions. The rest of the people of the South, he argued, should be encouraged to resume all the rights and privileges of citizenship as rapidly as possible.
Many members of Congress, especially the group known as Radical Republicans, strongly disagreed with the views of Lincoln and Johnson. They believed that the South should be punished. When they seceded, the southern states had, in the words of Senator Charles Sumner, committed "state suicide." They had ceased to be states and were no more than unorganized territories subject to rule by Congress. Congress had the power, the Radicals argued, to reorganize completely the social, political, and economic life of these conquered territories.

The fierce debate between the executive and legislative branches of government over Reconstruction culminated in the impeachment of President Andrew Johnson in 1868. Johnson was accused by Congress of committing "high crimes and misdemeanors." In the end, however, his opponents failed to convince the necessary two-thirds majority of senators that the charge was justified, and Johnson was not convicted. He served out his term, but his authority was weakened. Congress had showed it was determined to have its way in reconstructing the South.
Tensions between the executive and legislative branches of the national government continue to this day. In 1973, the Watergate scandal raised new questions about the powers of the President and legislature. Claiming "executive privilege," President Richard Nixon refused to cooperate with a congressional investigation into certain of his activities. Congress voted to impeach the President, but rather than stand trial, Nixon resigned. The crisis was over, but the issue of executive versus legislative power remains today.
The debate begins with Abraham Lincoln's and Andrew Johnson's views of Reconstruction. Lincoln's remarks were made on April 11, 1865, in what was to be his last public speech. Three days later, he was assassinated. The task of Reconstruction then fell to Andrew Johnson, who succeeded Lincoln as President. In his first annual message to Congress, on December 4, 1865, Johnson sought to justify his Reconstruction policy.

Abraham Lincoln

The reestablishment of national authority -- reconstruction -- is filled with great difficulty. I have been shown a letter in which the writer expresses regret that my mind has not seemed to be definitely fixed on the question of whether the seceded states are in the Union or out of it. I have purposely avoided any public expression upon the question. Any discussion of it could have not effect other than the mischievous one of dividing our friends. That question is good for nothing at all; it is merely a damaging and dangerous abstraction.
We all agree that the seceded states are out of their proper practical relation with the Union; and that the sole object of the government is regard to those states is to restore that proper practical relation. I believe it is not only possible, but in fact easier, to do this without deciding, or even considering, whether these states have been out of the Union. Finding them safely at home, it doesn't matter whether they had ever been abroad. Let us all join in doing what is necessary to restore these states to their proper relation with the Union.

Andrew Johnson

The fact is that all pretended acts of secession were from the beginning null and void. The States cannot commit treason any more than they can make valid treaties or engage in lawful commerce with a foreign power. The States attempting to secede placed themselves in a condition where their vitality was impaired, but not extinguished; their functions suspended, but no destroyed.
There is need for a spirit of mutual agreement and goodwill. All parties in the late terrible conflict must work together in harmony. On the one side, there must be a willingness to forgive and forget the disorders of the past. On the other side, the desire to maintain the Union shall be put beyond any doubt by the ratification of the proposed Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which provides for the abolition of slavery forever within the limits of our country. The adoption of the amendment reunites us beyond all power of disruption. It heals the wound that is still imperfectly closed. It removes slavery , the element which has so long confused and divided the country. It makes of us once more a united people.
The congressional group known as Radical Republicans disagreed sharply with the plan for Reconstruction put forth by Lincoln and Johnson, which they felt was much too lenient. The views of two of the most extreme Radical Republicans, Thaddeus Stevens of Pennsylvania and George Julian of Indiana, are next.

Thaddeus Stevens

We hold it to be the duty of the Government to inflict deserved punishment on the rebel belligerents, and so weaken their hands that they can never again endanger the Union. We especially insist that the property of the chief rebels should be seized and used for the payment of the national debt, caused by the unjust and wicked war which they instigated.
The foundation of their institution, both political, municipal, and social, must be broken up and relaid, or all our blood and treasure have been spent in vain. This can only be done by treating and holding them as a conquered people.
It matters but little whether you call them States out of the Union or conquered territories. Nobody pretends that with their old constitutions and frames of governmetn they can be permitted to claim their old rights under the Constitution. They have torn their constitutional States inot atoms, and built on their foundations fabrics of a totally different character. Dead men cannot raise themselves. Dead States cannot restore their existence "as it was." The late war between two acknowledged belligerents severed their original compacts and broke all the ties that bound them together. The future condition of the conquered power depends on the will of the conqueror. They must come in as new states or remain as conquered provinces.

George Julian

I would hang 40 or 50 of the most conspicuous rebel leaders, not for vengeance, but to satisfy public justice, and make expensive the enterprise of treason for all time to come. If these men are not punished, and you allow the infernal poison to sift itself down into the general mind that treason is no crime, in a little while we shall be shaking hands with our dear southern brethren, the government may get back into its old ruts, and another horrid war may result.
Next, you ought to take these hanged leaders' large landed estates and parcel them out among our soldiers and seamen, and the poor people of the South, black and white, as a basis of real democracy. The leading rebels are the great southern landlords. One half to three fourths of all the cultivated land belongs to them, and if you take it, you would not disturb the rights of the great body of the people in the South. If you don't do something of that kind, you will have in the rebel States a system almost as deplorable as slavery itself. Rich Yankees will go down there and buy up these estates and establish a system of wage slavery, of serfdom over the poor, that would be just as intolerable as the old system of servitude.


1. What question about Reconstruction does Lincoln say he has purposely avoided answering? Why?
2. Why does Johnson use the word "pretended" to describe the acts of secession?
3. What does Johnson call on each side to do?
4. According to Stevens, who had the right to determine the future of the rebel states? Why?
5. What treatment does Julian recommend for the leaders of the rebel states?
6. Why does Julian believe that the government should give the estates of the rebel leaders to the poor people of the South?
7. What is the purpose of Reconstruction according to:
Lincoln
Johnson
Stevens
Julian
8. What do you think would have been possible negative effects if only the Lincoln/Johnson plan had been implemented?
9. What do you think would have been possible negative effects if only the Steven/Julian plan had been implemented?

LIFE FOR FREED BLACKS

After the Civil War and the Emancipation Proclamation, many attempts were made to help the newly freed slaves adjust to life as free men. At the same time, many Southerners and others who were prejudiced made efforts at stopping the blacks from making any type of progress in society. Identify the following and provide detailed descriptions of the intended goals and actual effects.

13th Amendment
14th Amendment
15th Amendment
Black Codes
Freedman's Bureau
Civil Rights Act
Military Reconstruction Efforts
Black (Carpetbag) Reconstruction
Ku Klux Klan and similar organizations
"Jim Crow" Laws
Plessy vs. Ferguson

SHOO-FLY DON’T BODDER ME: The 15th Amendment
homework
Following the Civil War and abolition, the issue of voting rights for black men became an increasingly controversial political issue. By the spring of 1867, Congress required that former Confederate states include black manhood suffrage as a condition for readmission to the Union. Under this proposal black men would constitute the majority of voters in many Southern states, while in the North, black men could vote in only five of the six New England states. Although Radical Republicans such as Charles Sumner advocated for black voting rights on the basis of legal and political necessity, the issue was defeated in a number of popular referenda throughout 1867. In 1868 the Republican national platform adopted the seemingly contradictory position of endorsing a congressional mandate of black manhood suffrage in the former Confederacy, while stating that the issue should be left up to the rest of the states to decide for themselves.

 The election of 1868 however saw the Democratic party gain seats in the House of Representatives, with both Georgia and Louisiana electing Democratic legislatures. In an effort to shore up party support and prevent a retreat from Reconstruction in the South, the outgoing Republican Congress decided to propose and vote upon a constitutional amendment before the new Congress, with its smaller Republican majority in the House, took office. The Fifteenth Amendment, stating that the right to vote could not be denied because of "race, color, or previous condition of servitude" passed Congress in February, 1869.

Quickly ratified by Republican dominated states in New England, the Fifteenth Amendment met with resistance in the Mid-Atlantic states. New Jersey defeated the measure and Delaware would not approve the amendment until 1901. However, on March 30, 1870, the Fifteenth Amendment became part of the U.S Constitution. Ironically, as black men gained the right to vote throughout the United States, they systematically lost it in the South as Reconstruction came to an end. State requirements such as poll taxes and literacy tests, coupled with intimidation and violence, would serve to undermine the impact of the Fifteenth Amendment.

 Considered one of the most significant newspapers of its time, this unsigned cartoon appeared in Harper's Weekly on March 12, 1870, two weeks before Fifteenth Amendment was ratified.

1. According to this political cartoon, what is the artist's perception of the ability of black men to vote? Use specific references from the cartoon to support your position.

2. Given the wording of the Fifteenth Amendment, explain why the state of California is portrayed as a pesky fly. What possible reasons could there be for the presence of other "flies"?

3. The writer Henry Adams remarked that the Fifteenth Amendment was "more remarkable for what it does not than for what it does contain." Explain how this statement reflects the weaknesses of the Fifteenth Amendment.

4. Provide specific examples of how the Fifteenth Amendment effectively left the door open for other forms of discrimination in voting to emerge.

5. Discuss the response the women's suffrage movement would have had to this political cartoon. What effect would the cartoon possibly have on the relationship that existed between the Republican Party and the women's movement?

6.Select a current issue of your own and create a political cartoon in the space below: