Am. H. 2620 Test 1
Up Am. H. 2610 Notes Am. H. 2620 Test 1

Am. H. 2620 Test 2
Am. H. 2620 Test 3
Am. H. 2620 Test 4

 

 

Last updated:

08/18/98

Designed by:

Davis's Ent.

Read the DISCLAIMER before proceeding.

 

History Notes by PiNoY!

Test #1: 2/16/98

 

These notes include all answers for the questions for the readings, as well as all the terms on the sheet that I found RELEVANT. As much as possible, I have tried to include anything out of the lecture in the terms section. Standard disclaimers do apply, however.

Have Fun!,

PiNoY!

 

Questions for Eric Foner, "The New View of Reconstruction"

What does the essay by Eric Foner illustrate about the writing of History?

Foner’s essay on the writing of History, specifically the History of the Reconstruction, illustrates that the history written about a particular subject often become tainted with the biased views of the author. In most cases, it is not 100% clear if the author was taking into full view the accounts of all that were affected by the Reconstruction. Foner opens with a discussion of the pre-1960 conception of the Reconstruction, then ventures into its past and recent reworkings. (p. 2)

What is the traditional interpretation of Reconstruction that dominated historical writing for so long? Why did it enjoy remarkable staying power?

The traditional interpretation of the Reconstruction, well accepted before the 1960s, spawned from the work of William Dunning and his students at Columbia University. (This traditional interpretation is often dubbed the "Dunningite" view, as noted by the introduction of this essay.) In short, Dunning’s view primarily focused on the wagings and dealings of the whites. Replacement President Andrew Johnson is portrayed as the hardworking executive whose attempts at reconstruction are foiled by the insidious plans of the Radical Republicans (also called Vindictives or Jacobins). According to Dunning, corruption spawned from the attempts of hasty Radicals to fasten black supremacy to the old Confederacy. Dunning also defined and outlined the roles of carpetbaggers (Northerners who ran to the south in hopes of filing the vacancies of political offices) and scalawags (Southern whites who cooperated with the new governments for alleged personal gain.)

The Dunningite view enjoyed a long reign for several reasons. First of all, it clearly defined a set of easily identifiable heroes and villains – Johnson: GOOD, Radicals: EVIL. Next, it accorded with the political and social realities of the first half of the 20th century. It just "seemed" right to the people at the time. This old interpretation ignored the testimony of a crucial piece of the Reconstruction: the black freedman. (p.3)

 

Describe the revisionist view of Reconstruction. Note such things as the changing interpretations of the Radicals, conditions in the South, the role of the freedmen, the carpetbaggers, the scalawags, the Ku Klux Klan, and the presidential plans of Reconstruction.

The revision of the "Dunningite" view of history was inevitable, due to the fact that it ignored the testimony of the black freedman. His view created the assumption that blacks were unfit to share in political power.

 

Presidential Plans of Reconstruction: President Lincoln actually did not in fact have a set plan for stable reconstruction. He was carefully contemplating it, however. Johnson was not a hero of the reconstruction period – he was a stubborn, racist politician who lacked the ability to compromise. He continuously isolated himself from the broad band of public opinion and acted on his own personal biases.

 

The "Radicals": major ideas from the reconstruction definitely spawned from the workings of "radicals" like Charles Summner and Thaddeus Stevens. However, it was not only the radicals who supported these ideas. "Reconstruction legislation, ranging from the Civil Rights Act of 1866 to the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, enjoyed broad band support from moderate and conservative Republicans. It was not simply the work of a narrow radical faction." Thus, historians can no longer interpret the title "Radical Reconstruction" to simply be the work of the radicals.

 

Conditions in the South: history was reevaluated from the black point of view. The time period became viewed as a "time of extraordinary political, social, and economic progress for blacks. The establishment of public school systems, the granting of equal citizenship to blacks, the effort to restore the devastated Southern economy, the attempt to construct an interracial political democracy from the ashes of slavery, all these were commendable achievements, not the elements of Bower’s ‘tragic era.’"

 

The Role of the Freedmen: Originally, it was viewed that after emancipation, the blacks were lazy and sat around, waiting for the government to give them benefits. On the contrary, investigation into the role of freedmen have shown that "Black initiative established as many schools as did the Northern religious societies and the Freedmen’s Bureau." The right to vote wasn’t simply thrust upon them: they had to fight for it – and fight they did!

 

Carpetbaggers: In truth, they were former Union soldiers who sought economic opportunity in the postwar South, not unscrupulous adventurers as they were believed to be.

 

Scalawags: These were not traitors to the white race. Instead, they were "Old Line" Whig Unionists who had opposed secession in the first place. "Or, they were poor whites who had long resented the planters’ domination of Southern life and who saw in Reconstruction a chance to recast Southern society along more democratic lines… ; as one scalawag newspaper put it, the choice was ‘between salvation at the hand of the Negro or destruction at the hand of the rebels.’"

 

The Ku Klux Klan: in past views, the KKK did very little: they simply intimidated blacks by dressing up as ghosts and playing on African superstitions. In reality, however, the KKK often (physically) attacked and killed blacks and the white republicans who defended their rights. (This was often played down in past views.) (p.3-5)

Post-revolutionist writers have found Radical Reconstruction not to have been very radical. Explain.

After investigation into the matter, it seems evident that the "Radical Reconstruction" wasn’t very "radical" at all. In truth, the government did little to improve the situation of the freedman. "Since land was not distributed to former slaves, they remained economically dependent upon their owners." Not much had been done in terms of putting former slaves on the same civil rights level that whites enjoyed. (p. 6)

Some recent writers doubt whether the Republican party made a genuine commitment to racial justive in the South. Explain.

Many Northern and Federal politicians, with the exception of very few, like Thaddeus Stevens, adhered to the assumption that so long as the national government had emancipated the slaves, it would take very little effort to have them integrated into society. Thus, the feds never really pushed for anything else. They simply granted black suffrage. Very little was done, if at all anything, to try and improve the situation of the freedman. They didn’t really push for things to be done… there was no real commitment. (p.7)

Were African Americans united in Reconstruction Politics?

No. "Conflicts within the black community, no less than divisions among whites, shaped Reconstruction politics." Studies on this subject took place under Thomas Holt and Nell Painter, who further discovered that a majority of blacks who took office ("representative colored men", as they were called) failed to provide the ordinary freeman with political leadership. "Holt found that black officeholders in South Carolina mostly emerged from the old free mulatto class of Charleston, which shared many assumptions with prominent whites. ‘Basically bourgeois in their origins and orientation,’ he wrote, they ‘failed to act in the interest of black peasants." (p.7 – 8)

Explain some of the arguments why the South, and especially its African American population, suffered from dire poverty and economic retardation in the decades following the Civil War.

(shaky) After emancipation, little was done to help the blacks economically. Because the land that they previously worked on STILL belonged to their owners, they really had no choice but to work for their former "masters". A large amount of bitterness still stayed between these two parties. There was plenty of corruption. White farmers were forced to pay the high taxes, while propertyless blacks got away scot-free. The whites envied advantages given to the blacks and the two were always in conflict. A new system of labor needed to be developed, but none replaced the current one. (p. 8 - 11)

The author notes that in terms of the sense of possibility with which it opened, Reconstruction failed, but it was a "splendid failure." Explain.

The Reconstruction opened with a "well-to-do" sense: trying to put blacks on the same level as whites - politically, socially, and economically. Although is seems that many of the original objectives of the Reconstruction were never really achieved (putting them on the same level, letting them survive, offering protection, land, etc.), the Reconstruction fueled the debates on these issues that opened American to a wide amount of opportunities and set the foundation for modern America.

 

Questions for Henry Sturgis, "The Iron Spine"

What were problems that delayed a decision on constructing a transcontinental railroad in the 1840s and 1850s?

In short, corruption, Indians, politics and politicans, and all the more.

Corruption - Scandals like the Credit & Finance Company and the Credit Mobilier (see question #3) "overcharged" themselves to put government railroad subsidies into their own pockets.

Indians - Track layers had to plow through Indian territory and often times ran into "injun trouble"…

Politics - There was fierce competition over as well as against the railroad systems. "Near-by" Railroads has the ability to transform deserted areas into populous cities almost overnight. Used for transportation of both people and goods, towns near railroads were sure to prosper. But there was controversy over WHERE the railroad should be located: In the North or in the South? Some southern congressmen didn't even WANT a railroad to begin with. (Remember that whole sectionalism thing we learned last semester?) A lot of people in the South thought that it would just be a waste of money!

Why was the Civil War an asset for Theodore Judah in getting federal government support for a transcontinental railroad line?

Theodore Judah, also known as "Crazy Judah" (for the way he romanticized about a transcontinental railroad line), was scheming things before the war even started. It was only after the start of the Civil War was Judah able to convince Congress (now made up of only Northern Congress men who supported the rail line from the very beginning for trade purposes) to subsidize Judah's corporation, " The Central Pacific Railroad of California."

What was the purpose of the Credit & Finance Company and the Credit Mobilier? What was the Credit Mobilier scandal?

The Credit & Finance Company, originally called "the Associates", was created by the "Big Four" executives of the Central Pacific Railroad Company: Leland Stanford, Charles Crocker, Mark Hopkins, and Collis Huntington. This was a "dummy" company created and contracted to build the railroad. In effect, Central Pacific contracted the Credit & Finance Company (themselves), who over charged for the services, the "Big Four" pocketing the difference between the "real rate" and the amount given to them by the government. The Credit Mobilier had the same purpose, except it was created Oakes Ames. Oakes Ames was the brother of the president of Union Pacific Railroad, AND a US representative from Massachusetts. Union Pacific hired out the Credit Mobilier to be "inspectors." In the mean time, Oakes pocketed the difference and used some of the cash to send "contributions" to his friends in Congress… congressmen who kept the railroad bills on the floor and passing… which led to more subsidizes… which led to more money… which led to MO PROBLEMS! (B.I.G lives on inside of everyone! B.I.G RULEZ!!!)

What was the effect of the first transcontinental railroad as seen by the author?

America was becoming the most powerful industrial nation the world had ever seen. "The Railway is the greatest centralizing force of modern times." (According to President James Garfield… which is ironic because he was involved with the Credit Mobilier Scandal!)

 

Questions for Robert L. Heilbroner, "Epitaph for the Steel Master"

How Does Robert L. Heilbroner explain the growth of Carnegie's steel empire?

Very Well!!!

J

Umm… OK… What kind of stupid question is this? Anyway, Carnegie earned his was in business the hard way. Originally from Scotland (hence the references to William Wallace and Robert the Bruce in the later part of the passage), Andy Carnegie's family came to America with the same "American Dream" that everyone else has… (yeah yeah… lackety schmackety)… His family was very poor, and Andy had to work ever since he was a little kid. He started out as a messenger boy for a small telegraph company. He did extremely well, becoming one of only THREE people (at the time) who could telegraph words "straight of the wire"… (telegraph as people spoke). Eventually, he got into the hands of Thomas A. Scott and T.T. Woodruff, pioneers in the railroad industry. He grew from there, establishing contacts in the field and the creation of his Steel Empire. (In time, Carnegie's steel production output would more than double that of Europe's production output as a whole!)

What was Carnegie's attitude towards wealth?

Carnegie was extremely power hungry, but munificent as well. "We see the unequal struggle between a man who loved money - loved making it, having it, and spending it - and a man who, at bottom, was ashamed of himself for his acquisitive desires." It's true that he made TONS of money: After his death, there was speculation that he had made no less than five hundred million dollars… but in the end, his estate totaled $22,881,575 - meaning that he had given away over 90% of his wealth! In a note to himself, he wrote that at age 33, he had begun to earn $50,000 per year. At that time, he decided to keep only $50,000 of profits per year, and give away the rest, to retire 2 years later. Andrew Carnegie worked on, however - 33 MORE years!

What was Carnegie's attitude towards wealth?

"Carnegie was also a ruthless driver of his men. He pitted his associated and subordinates in competition with one another until a feverish atmosphere pervaded the whole organization."

How does Heilbroner assess Carnegie?

Another DUMB question!!!!!! Umm… gee…he does it… VERY WELL!!! Anyway, "in general (i.e at the end)", Heilbroner saw Carnegie as a powerful, rich man. He was philanthropic, though…as he gave away just about all of his money to education and stuff like that… That why you here of his famous libraries that he funded, that Carnegie Institutes in Pittsburgh and Washington (aka Carnegie Mellon University), Carnegie Hall in New York, the Hague Peace Palace, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and the precedent making Carnegie Corporation of New York (remember watching Reading Rainbow when you were, like, 7 years old? "This show has been founded by the Carnegie Corporation… and in part by Kellogs"… Yup… That's the same exact Andrew Carnegie!)

 

Questions for C. Vann Woodward, "Plessy vs. Ferguson: The Birth of Jim Crow"

What is meant by "Jim Crow"?

The Name "Jim Crow" is taken from an "antebellum (pre-war) minstrel show character" (taken from an outside source… but I have no idea what they are talking about!!!) In any case, this name was applied to the laws that set out to divide the south into two separate societies: the whites and the coloreds. These laws kept whites separate from the allegedly inferior race of colored people. These laws eventually led to the case of Plessy vs. Ferguson, where the doctrine of "separate, but equal" was tested. Unfortunately, the doctrine stood, and the courts said that it was ok to segregate, so long as both services were EQUAL.

Did Jim Crow laws immediately follow the end of Reconstruction?

Not exactly. I mean, it's inherent that there WAS de facto racial discrimination immediately following the end of reconstruction (marked by the compromise of 1877 and the presidential election of 1876)…but the book clearly states that the first genuine Jim Crow law "requiring railroads to carry blacks in separate cars or behind partitions was adopted by Florida in 1887." Soon, everyone was following suit: Mississippi, Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Tennessee and Kentucky… all in for it. So, I guess it didn't immediately follow, but there sure was racial tension throughout!

When was the first genuine Jim Crow law requiring railroads to separate passengers along racial lines passed?

Umm… look at Question #2! J

What contributed to the mounting racism in the United States by the end of the 19th century?

The end of reconstruction. Blacks had pinned all of their hopes in the fact that since the North had won the Civil War, their rights would eventually be restored no matter what. However, the "compromise of 1877" ended the Reconstruction period and the Republicans (much less anyone else) didn't really want to do anything more… Recall that part of the "compromise" provisioned that the North was to withdraw federal troops from the south. By this, the government could no longer control what went on down there. Everyone began to abandon the cause, and the fact that the Jim Crow laws were being passed and not stopped made people think that it was ok to do it. Further segregation then contributed to the mounting racism. And it was going UNOPPOSED.

On July 10, 1890, the Louisiana Assembly passed a bill entitled "An Act to promote the comfort of passengers". What was its purpose?

Umm….DUHH!!!! They wanted to SEGREGATE… i.e. separate blacks from whites… the "comfort" part was really fake. The law required railroads to provide equal but separate accommodations for the white and black races.

In May 1892, the Louisiana Supreme Court held the 1890 Louisiana law in part unconstitutional. Why? Why was the decision not satisfactory to opponents of the law?

The court said that it was unconstitutional on the basis that it altered interstate commerce (because the test case used a passenger who was traveling between two states). However, the court did not make it unconstitutional as a whole for intrastate commerce… This was a "weak" victory because it didn't do jack shit up in the higher supreme court (i.e. the FEDERAL supreme court…) So, another case was needed…

Who was Homer Adolph Plessy?

The man that they used for the second test case involving wholly intrastate commerce. He described himself as "7/8's Caucasian and 1/8 African"… but he looked entirely black. He sat in the "white car" and was told to move to the "Jim Crow" car… he refused, and a detective arrested him. (Just in case you HAVEN'T read… the "test cases" were all actually rigged… the railroads didn't like the Jim Crow laws either because it made them spend more money on their "separate, but equal" cars. The case is drawn, and Plessy vs. Ferguson appears on the court docket.

Who was Francis Redding Tillou Nicholls? How does the author explain his apparent change in attitude toward racism?

Nicholls was the original governor who had signed the Jim Crow Act into law when he was still governor of Louisiana. At heart and at the very beginning, Nicholls denounced racism and helped blacks gain political power in Louisiana. As time came on, however, he conceded to racism as the powerful white farmer population began to rise up in rebellion against the blacks. Although he did "change his mind" on racism during this time, he openly upheld the legality of the Jim Crow law (as now, in 1892, Chief Justice) so that the law could begin to be defeated.

How did Albion Tourgee in his brief to the Supreme Court [on the] behalf of Plessy characterize the "separate but equal" doctrine? Identify: "Justice is pictured blind, and her daughter, the law, ought to at least be color blind."

The argument that Tourgee upheld in his brief to the Supreme Court was that Plessy had been deprived of property without due process of law. That "property" was the "reputation of being white". It was "the most valuable sort of property, being the master-key that unlocks the golden door to opportunity." He went further to say that "Probably most white persons, if given the choice… would prefer death to life in the U.S. as a colored person." Specifically pertaining to the "separate but equal doctrine," Tourgee noted that "the object of such a law is simply to debase and distinguish against the inferior race." (And… oh yeah… be able to identify that quote above… it's good, eh? J )

Be able to discuss the case of Plessy v. Ferguson.

Hmmm… what exactly? Gee… I dunno… let's see… The entire aim of demolishing the Jim Crow laws was brought up by L.A. Martinet and R.L. Desdunes, newspaper editors of Louisiana. They hired James C. Walker to create a case to go up against the Jim Crow laws. Walker associated with Albion Winegar Tourgee of Mayville, NY, who ended up doing a whole lot of the work. They "rigged" a case and put a partial black man (who looked black) in a white car and made him refuse to move to the "Jim Crow Car". He was arrested, and Tourgee (and Plessy) sued the court (John H. Ferguson, Judge of Section A of the Criminal District Court for the Parish of New Orleans). The constitutionality of the Jim Crow laws were upheld, and the case was brought to the US Supreme Court with the help of Chief Justice Francis Redding Tillou Nicholls. Tourgeee threw a slew of arguments that did not impress the court. Despite the arguments above, the Supreme Court basically said that if blacks really DO think of themselves as inferior, then there's nothing that the courts can do about it! The doctrine of "separate, but equal" was upheld.

The majority opinion in the Plessy case said that validity of segregation laws depended on their reasonableness. How was this to be measured?

Verbatim, "And in determining reasonableness, the legislature "is at liberty to act with reference to the established usages, customs, and traditions of the people, and with a view to the promotion of their comfort, and the preservation of the public peace and good order."" So, it was basically up to no one! It was so vague that they could to whatever they wanted…

Who was John Marshall Harlan? Note his argument in Plessy v. Ferguson.

He was a southern gentleman, a slaveholder, and a conservative at heart. He was the "lone dissenter" in the Plessy v. Ferguson case, with arguments echoing those of Tourgee: "Our constitution is color blind… The law regards man as man." He was totally against the Jim Crow laws.

How long did Plessy v. Ferguson remain the law of the land?

For 58 years lacking one day, from May 18, 1896 to May 17, 1954, when the court overruled "Separate, but equal" with the case Brown et al. v. Board of Education of Topeka, et al. (by Justice John Marshall, ironically enough… (I think?))

Identification

Thaddeus Stevens - "Radical" Republican leader who worked for the rights of blacks long before any conceivable political advantage… They really worked for black rights because they wanted to… not because they would "look good." Served in the House from 1859 until his death in 1868. He hated the "replacement president" Andrew Johnson, calling him a "rank demagogue" and a "damned scoundrel." Thaddeus Stevens, on behalf of the Republican Radicals, led the attack on Johnson after the president violated the Tenure of Office Act in February 1868. (Johnson ended up not being convicted, however, as the arguments were more political in character, rather than judicial.) Thaddeus Stevens was a major leader of the Radicals. He was not lovable, and was intensely partisan. ("Republicans all the way! - Hey… it's the REPUBLICANS that saved the Union after all!!!") Great parliamentary talents… a good guy, but no great tolerance. Opposed slavery and class distinctions. He was a member of the "Whig Party" in the beginning, and played an important part in the transformation to the Republican Party.

Ten Percent Plan - Plan drawn up by President Lincoln by the end of 1863. He believed that the war was far enough along that he could start adding people back into the Union, his "Plan of Amnesty & Reconstruction." Except for the special exceptions of anyone in high ranking under the Confederacy, or people who mistreated prisoners, etc. (who would require a separate SPECIAL pardon), any one else could take an oath back into the union. And, once 1/10 (or ten percent… DUH!) of the 1860 electorate had taken this oath, then Reconstruction could formally begin. (Note that there was nothing mentioned about granting black suffrage (i.e. granting rights to blacks) Just reworking the constitutions to exclude slavery & secession. After all, Lincoln wanted a "quick" reconstruction, so he tried to play away from the issue of Civil Rights.

Wade-Davis Bill - The "Congressional Plan" passed the following summer (1864) in response to the President's 10% Plan. It was like 10%, except that it require the MAJORITY to take the oath… In addition, Political Rights would be withheld unless you took the "Iron Clad Oath" in which you SWORE that you never voluntarily raised arms against the U.S. or given aid to the rebels (just about no one could take that oath!!!) In addition, the new state constitutions would have to repudiate Confederate debts. Lincoln pocket vetoed the bill (after passing through Congress), and matters stood until Lincoln was assassinated.

Thirteenth Amendment - Section 1. - Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their Jurisdiction. Section 2 - Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. Basically made Slavery illegal in the U.S. As a consequence, however, Southern representation was increased, as the 13th Amendment made the 3/5ths compromise null and void. So, Republicans were scared that the Southerners might vote in congressmen and allow Democrats to take office… but oh well…

Fourteenth Amendment - A breakthrough in "rights for former slaves" around the world. It first gave a broad definition of the word "citizen" which included all former slaves. It then immediately struck down the "Black Codes" by sating that "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United State; nor shall any State deprive any person of live, liberty, or property without due process of law." If a state denied the vote to any class of its male adult citizens, its representation was to be reduced proportionately. Also, federal official (who ranked and helped in the Confederacy) would be barred from holding office unless they were SPECIFICALLY pardoned by a 2/3rds vote by Congress. The Confederate Debt was repudiated. (Note that this amendment DID NOT SPECIFICALLY OUTLAW SEGREGATION or prevent a state from disfranchising blacks. (They could not work this in now, as the Southern states would NEVER have it, and it would have been impossible to get the amendment passed.)

Fifteenth Amendment - This SPECIFICALLY forbade the states to deny the vote to anyone "on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." (Once again, nothing was said about denial of the vote on the basis of sex, which caused feminists to be angry as hell… even more than the 14th amendment did…) Black voters now registered like crazy. (This amendment was passed primarily on behalf of the republicans, who found out that Grant won the election thanks to the blacks… So, this was an effort to try and get more blacks in to vote of Republicans.)

Black Codes - Slavery was more than just a labor system in the south: It was the basis of their society as well. These "codes" were meant to regulate this relationship between whites and blacks, and although they varied from state to state, included such things as: no interracial marriages, no apprenticeships for blacks, can't be in court or be a witness (Ex: in Mississippi, you can arrest a black if he fails to complete his work contract. Was this just another method of keeping slavery alive?) They kept the blacks "as near to a state of bondage (NOT WHAT YOU'RE THINKING!!!) as possible." Most permitted blacks to do certain things, but: blacks could not bear arms, be employed in occupations other than farming and domestic service, or leave their jobs without forfeiting back pay. These laws were basically ways to "get around" the 13th amendment. As a result, Congress quickly rejected Johnsonian Reconstruction.

Freedman's Bureau - Johnson's attitude towards "influencing" southerners to "fight" against black suffrage fueled the fire of the Republicans who passed a bill to expand and extend the Freedman's Bureau, an organization established in March 1865 to care for refugees. It was a branch of the War Department that already had special powers in the south, and Congress wanted to expand its power. Johnson vetoed the bill, however, arguing that it was an unconstitutional extension of the military during peacetime. (It created schools and food places, and stuff like that for black people. Many whites, especially the poor, thought that it was unfair!)

Civil Rights Act of 1866 - As a result of the above veto, Congress passed this act. Not only did it specifically state that black were citizens of the US, but it "denied the states the power to restrict their rights to testify in court, to make contracts for their labor, and to gold property. In other words, it put "teeth" in the 13th amendment. Once again, the president vetoed, which drove the moderates into the hands of the radicals. On April 9, 1866, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866 by a 2/3rds majority, the first time that a major piece of legislation passed a veto in American History. This is important because IT MARKS THE TURN OF POWER FROM THE PRESIDENT TO THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH!!!

Congressional Elections of 1866 - hmm…. What the…? I dunno what he was talking about, but I wrote down the following:

Orders to the army MUST be passed first through the Army's General (even though it is written that the PRESIDENT is the Army's real General in Chief!)

The Tenure of Office Act of 1867: Any person appointed by the president w/ consent of the senate can NOT be removed unless the senate also gives consent. (This helped to cancel some presidential power.)

General Reorganization Act: Undid everything that Lincoln and Johnson did, including the dividing of the old Confederacy into 5 military districts. It also required that the state constitutions be REWRITTEN to include BLACK SUFFRAGE.

This and the 14th amendment had to be ratified before reconstruction in that state could pursue.

The military would be actively used to help register votes (applied specifically to the south, where many whites shunned black registries… military would now take an active role to make sure that they did get through…)

All of these acts were created to overcome white reconstruction resistance…

Johnson vowed to make the choice between the 14th amendment and his own policy the main issue of the 1866 congressional elections. He failed, however. White women thought that the ratification of the 14th amendment put black men in front of white women. The Republicans won more than 2/3rds in BOTH houses, with control of ALL northern state governments. Now the radicals were strong, and I guess all of the above was passed as a result of their election…

First Reconstruction Act - Passed on March 2, 1867. Divided all southern states that had NOT ratified the 14th amendment into five military districts, each controlled by a major general. In order to rid themselves of military rule, the states had to adopt new state constitutions guaranteeing blacks the right to vote and disfranchising broad classes of ex-confederates. If the new constitutions checked to be ok, and ALSO ratified the 14th amendment, then the state's representatives would be readmitted into congress, and hence military rule would end. Johnson's veto was easily overridden. The only problem is that the act was so vague that people didn't know how the fuck to work it! The act didn't spell out exactly HOW each state was to go about rewriting their constitutions. In fact, some southerner states said, "Hey! We like the old way better…We'll just sit here as a dumb "military district" as long was we don't have to make blacks actual citizens!!!"

Tenure of Office Act (of 1867) - was violated by Johnson, and by which, he was put to trial (by his loving republicans… J ), but not convicted. (In February 1868, Johnson violated the act by dismissing Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton, a part of his cabinet that was helping out the Republicans.) The act said that "Any person appointed by the president w/ consent of the senate can not be removed unless the senate also gives consent." (This lowered presidential power.) Unfortunately, the act was a whim, and Johnson's lawyers said that it was his "test" to prove the act unconstitutional. (Besides, Stanton had been appointed by President LINCOLN during his first term… and NOT by Johnson!)

Scalawags - one of the "real (types of) rulers" of "black Republican" governments. Scalawags were southerners who had accepted the imposition of the northerners' will upon the south, and was ready to cooperate with republicans because they accepted the results of the war and maybe even wanted to advance their own interests. (In reality, however, they were "Old Line" Whig Unionists who had opposed secession in the first place, or poor whites who had long resented the planters' domination of Southern life.)

Carpetbaggers - the other type of person… northerners who went to the South as idealists to help the freed slaves, as employees of the federal government, or more commonly as settlers hoping to improve themselves. Their motives and reasons for coming down were varied. (In reality, they were usually former Union soldiers seeking economic opportunity in the South.)

"Forty Acres and a Mule" - the idea that TRUE independence could only be attained by going out and earning a living for yourself: a small plot of land of your own ("40 acres and a mule") would complete their independence from the whites.

Sharecropping - Under the sharecropping system, planters divided up their large plantations into small units on which he put a single black family. The crops were usually split 50/50 between the planter and the plantees (the planter provided housing, tools, animals, seed, and other supplies… all the family had to do was supply the labor). This gave families specific control over what they wanted to do. This method began to fail, however, as there was little capital available to finance the system.

Crop-lien system - Instead, the crop-lien system was developed, putting an emphasis on stuff that they could sell really quickly: weed, sugar, tobacco, and especially cotton. This really sucked though, because then everyone tried to grow these (especially the weed!) and it quickly depleted the soil… so it REALLY killed everyone! As a result, new "crossroads stores" developed and a small new market class came about, but the got killed by the system too as they had to borrow money just like everyone else did…

Union League of America - a patriotic club founded during the war used by Southern white Republicans to control the black vote. They "impressed" the blacks with tons of weird mumbo jumbo saying, "Better vote for this or else we're all gonna suffer!" So, they did.

Ku Klux Klan - At first, it was only a small society to try and keep black people from voting. Then, they started resorting to intimidation, and finally to force, often killing and executing " 'dem niggers"… Congress struck at them with three "Force Acts" and finally broke up the Klan enough to disorganize them. They still played a large role in making it "respectable" to intimidate black voters. Soon, instead of hiding in the shadows, people began to openly oppress the blacks.

Election of 1876 - the whole story (this sucks…): During the early 1870's, there were lots of bad economic ties. Scandalous governments a-plenty. The Republicans were scared that they might lose the election. They picked Ohio governor Rutherford B. Hayes (OVER James G. Blaine, who they DIDN'T pick because he was involved with railroad scandals) to run. (Also because Hayes promised to run for only one term.) The Democrats picked Governor Samuel J. Tilden of NY, a wealthy lawyer who had cracked up the "Tweed Ring" (some gang) in NYC. Towards the end, Tilden was capturing the popular vote and the Republicans got really scared. They then saw that that they had just enough votes to put in Hayes as president, so they put some "henchmen" into Florida to "invalidate" the Democratic vote (don't ask me how!!! This book SUCKS!!!)… So, the votes came back and supposedly Hayes won. The President of the Senate is supposed to open up the votes in front of the Senate and the House to do the counting (which was supposedly marginal), but because the House was full of Democrats and the Senate full of Republicans, neither would allow the other to do the job. So, close to inauguration day, a special committee made of 5 representatives, 5 senators, and 5 supreme court judges (or 7 repubs, 7 demos, and a non-partisan) was to decide. However, the non-partisan judge, David Davis, got elected senator! So, the spot went to Associate Justice Joseph P. Bradley of New Jersey, a Republican. So, the republicans got the votes and Hayes won.

Compromise of 1877 - Even though Democrats were bitter about Hayes winning the election, they thought they could at least weasel their way into a little "compromise". There were still troops in Louisiana, Florida, and South Carolina that the South didn't want there… plus, the south needed CASH because they wanted to do tons of internal improvements, annex Texas, and put in railroads. So, in this "Give & Take Government", the Republicans said that they would support the annexation of Texas, the creation of internal improvements in the south, and the removal of troops in the South (left over from the war!!!) in exchange for putting a Republican in as Speaker of the House. This "informal compromise" was never written out, but it held up long enough to put in Hayes as President. But, after that, it fell through… the democrats didn't support a Republican Speaker of the House, the Republicans didn't support a Texas Railroad… and blah blah blah… Hayes DID however appoint a republican to his cabinet. THIS COMPROMISE ENDS THE PERIOD OF RECONSTRUCTION!!!

Civil Rights Cases (1883) - Occurred during the time that people began to throw away the 15th amendment. Poll taxes and literacy tests kept blacks from voting. Number decreased drastically from 130,000 black votes in 1896 to 5,000 black votes in 1900. The Civil Rights Cases of 1883 overthrew the Civil Rights Act of 1875, declaring it unconstitutional. So, blacks had nowhere to go: no recourse under the law. Everything was torn away from them… that REALLY sucked!!!

Civil Rights Act of 1875 - what kind of order is this?!?! This guy sucks!!!! And you know what? The ONLY place that the book mentions the Civil Rights Act is when it says that the Civil Rights Cases of 1883 overturned them… AHHH!!!! He didn't even talk about this in class!!!!

Plessy v. Ferguson - this was covered in Our Nation's Heritage, so study it CAREFULLY!!! In Plessy v. Ferguson, they tested out the idea of "separate v. equal". The court ruled that even in places of public accommodation, segregation was legal as long as both facilities were EQUAL. "If one race be inferior to the other socially, the Constitution of the United States cannot put them upon the same plane." REMEMBER this name, however: John Marshall Harlan. He was the "lone dissenter" that we talked about in class that said that "our constitution is color blind… and doing any of this really sucks! Just like History! History really bites!" Anyway… it kept "Separate but Equal" in effect until the early 1900's… when it was overturned by Brown v. Topeka School Board of Education… but none other than Supreme Court Justice JOHN MARSHALL.

Booker T. Washington & The Atlanta Compromise - deemed as one of the most extraordinary men of the time. Washington was an African American who earned an education while working as a janitor. His main thing was the Atlanta Compromise… which really wasn’t a compromise at all! He was giving a speech in front of a mixed audience when he said that rather than fighting against social injustices, blacks should rise up and be educated and then learn to work. It's only then that whites will be able to see each other as equal, because as is, blacks were caught in an unfortunate circle: whites denied blacks basic education, and the "ignorance" that while people saw as a result of their lack of education was basis for their refusal of even more education! Well, Washington chose "accommodation" of social injustices over confrontation. A lot of blacks took it the wrong way, however. This speech was in no way saying that blacks should compromise their pursual of civil rights for economic gains. It was merely a subtle form of Black Nationalism, and he was telling people not to just TAKE the insults and racial slurs… but to IGNORE them.

The rest of this test's relevant terms can be found in the list of answers for the readings. This includes: Credit Mobilier, Central Pacific Railroad, Union Pacific Railroad, and Promontory (, Utah). This ALSO includes Andrew Carnegie.