The relevance of a doctrine's being
hendersl at ix.netcom.com
Mon Mar 22 15:35:11 PST 2004
The best history of this of which I am aware --which somewhat undercuts the
notion that the North was shot through and through with racism--is Eric
Foner's *Reconstruction.* (Indeed, a whole new grou of historians are
beginning to debunk the myth that the North didn't care much about the
welfare of the slaves)
It is true that Hayes-Tilden/1877 is consdiered the "watershed," but many
events--financialpanics, lack of consistent, committed leadership, the Court
pulling back, etc.--led to the demise of Reconstruction befor ethe final
blow was delt.
It is hard to say whether a strong voice, such as Lincoln's, could have
helped, given that the voice was lost.
Prof. Lynne Henderson
Boyd School of Law--UNLV
4505 Maryland Pkwy
Las Vegas, NV 89154
----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Laycock" <DLaycock at mail.law.utexas.edu>
To: "Mark Graber" <mgraber at gvpt.umd.edu>; <hendersl at ix.netcom.com>;
<zimmermi at shu.edu>
Cc: <conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu>
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 2:27 PM
Subject: Re: RE: The relevance of a doctrine's being
> The headline version is that Reconstruction ended when Hayes
> promised to pull out the remaining troops as part of the deal that ended
> the deadlocked Hayes-Tilden election in 1876. But that was just the final
> Reconstruction had become deeply unpopular, in the North as well
> as in the South. The North was tired of occupying the South, the way many
> Americans today are tired of or worried about occupying Iraq, with the
> additional factor that the repeated involvement of armed troops to protect
> voting rights and seat legislators seemed to threaten military
> in place of democracy. Yet blacks could not vote in many places, and
> legislators could not be seated, without the protection of armed troops.
> The bottom line was that the Democrats swept the Congressional
> elections of 1874, and the Republicans needed a new issue. One of the
> issues they chose was withholding money from Catholic schools; that is why
> the failed Blaine Amendment was offered in 1876. Troops were coming home
> even before Hayes made his deal.
> Maybe Lincoln's leadership would have made some difference, but
> the fundamental problem was probably insoluble: the North lacked the will
> to enforce racial equality in the South over the long run. The South
> win by merely persisting; the North could win only by an extraordinary
> effort. And most of the North wasn't that fired up about racial equality
> At 04:37 PM 3/22/2004 -0500, Mark Graber wrote:
> >How much would malice toward the leaders of the Confederacy matter. The
> >Republican theory was that secession was sponsored by a few hotheads,
> >and that lots of southern whites were really nascent Republicans. If
> >this was right, then maybe stringing up a few leaders would have worked.
> > But isn't it the case that a) you didn;t need to string up a few
> >leaders to prevent a secession reprise, since that was settled at
> >appomattox (spelling approximate), and b) you would need more like a
> >KILLING FIELDS scenario to promote racial equality in the south, given
> >how deeply entrenched and popular white supremacy was in that region.
> >Alternatively, and more seriously than stringing up a few people, the
> >better strategy might have been to disarm all Confederates, arm all
> >former slaves and put them completely in control for a generation or so.
> > But hang the 50 people of your choice, and I don't think history is
> >much different.
> >Mark A. Graber
> >To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
> >To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> Douglas Laycock
> University of Texas Law School
> 727 E. Dean Keeton St.
> Austin, TX 78705
> 512-232-1341 (voice)
> 512-471-6988 (fax)
> dlaycock at mail.law.utexas.edu
More information about the Conlawprof