dagblog - Comments for "Three Articles"

Yeah. The original

NCD — Mon, 07 May 2012 23:20:29 +0000

In reply to Johnson of course was from

Yeah. The original reconstruction act, of March 2, 1867, titled 'An act to provide for a more efficient government for the Rebel States' was about one page long, it was passed, vetoed and overrode the same day. Imagine that sort of brevity and action today. see Library of Congress - link.

Johnson of course was from

PeraclesPlease — Mon, 07 May 2012 19:44:07 +0000

In reply to From the 'Birth,

Johnson of course was from Tennessee, so almost de facto a sympathizer.

"Inherently Unequal" notes that if Johnson had compromised a little bit, he could have prevented much of Radical Reconstruction, but he was a loony and absolutist.

But "Unequal" also notes the role Johnson played in supporting the revocation of black rights under his view of white superiority - blaming this solely on the Supreme Court seems unwarranted, though with Grant's rise to power and a Republican super-majority, it was the Court that cut the knees out of reconstruction at the same time as it was losing interest among northern Republicans (bigger issues had come to dominate).

Ironically, it was also the revocation of the 3/5th rule that increased southern representation and made it harder to pass Republican legislation, but then the Republicans refused to seat southern representatives in 1866, tilting the field again back in their favor.

It should be remembered in discussing all this that Grant's government was extremely corrupt - anything good that came out of it was largely by accident.

Speaking of books, last night

Donal — Mon, 07 May 2012 19:42:01 +0000

In reply to Three Articles

Speaking of books, last night I saw the second half of Bill Moyer's interview with Luis Urrea, who has just written Queen of America:

Thanks for noting the book.

rmrd0000 — Mon, 07 May 2012 19:18:40 +0000

In reply to From the 'Birth,

Thanks for noting the book. I'm headed to Amazon. Hopefully, it's available in ebook format.

I view the Supremes as being identical to the religious leaders who let political views color the legal decisions rendered.

From the 'Birth,

NCD — Mon, 07 May 2012 17:45:06 +0000

In reply to Three Articles

From the 'Birth, Decline...Solid South' link:

After the Civil War, Radical Republicans orchestrated the Reconstruction of the South: a military occupation of the former Confederacy, the end slavery via the 13th Amendment, safeguarding political and some civil rights for new black citizens...

Unknown to most Americans, the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution ("All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States..") which gave rights to 'all persons' was passed only because the Solid South was under military occupation in 5 military districts.

As part of the Reconstruction Acts, each state of the Solid South had to ratify the 14th Amendment to end the military occupation and regain the Constitutional rights of statehood. President Johnson, who took over after the Lincoln assassination and was a southern sympathizer, vetoed the Reconstruction Acts, but his veto was overridden by a Congress that had no representatives from the Solid South.

The crux being, if the South was not under military occupation after the Civil War, and if they were simply readmitted to the Union with no conditions, obstruction would be the name of the game. There would never have been a 14th Amendment guaranteeing the rights of all Americans. The fact that blacks were still deprived of their rights in the south, was due to actions the Supreme Court over the following decades. This period is described in Inherently Unequal: The Betrayal of Equal Rights by the Supreme Court, 1865-1903, a recently published book. It covers the decisions, and mentions the failure of the Founding Fathers to realize the potential for the Supreme Court to become unaccountable oppressors of the freedoms that Alexander Hamilton, and others, thought they would be the last line, and zealous defenders of for the nation.

The book is interesting, because again today we see actions of Congress that may be struck down by a one vote majority of the Supreme Court. One of the solutions during the post-Civil War period, which was not passed, was to require a 2/3 majority of the Supremes to overturn a law passed by Congress.