The Freedmen's Bureau, Politics, And Stability Operations During Reconstruction In The South

Major William H. Burks USAF

• Publisher: Golden Springs Publishing
• Year: 2015
• ISBN:
  9781782899297
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: American Civil War History
• Index: History

The United States' Civil War ended in 1865. However, the post-conflict period immediately following, known as Reconstruction, lasted another twelve years. This era provides a great case study to examine the impacts of politics on military stability operations. This paper studies the Freedmen's Bureau during its existence from 1865 to 1872. Envisioned as the lead organization for integrating former slaves into American society, the Bureau's efforts in the post-Civil War South were undermined by a hostile political situation at the national and state level and a diminishing lack of popular support throughout the entire nation to embrace radical social changes. The Bureau's operational timeframe splits into three distinct periods: conflict with President Andrew Johnson from 1865 to early 1867, revamped efforts during Congressional Reconstruction from early 1867 to the end of 1868, and a reduced operational focus (primarily education) from 1869 to 1872. The Bureau faced manning challenges and fought racism as it worked to help former slaves become self-sufficient, educated, and true citizens of the nation in which they resided. Unfortunately, hostile political conditions meant much of the civil rights work accomplished by the Bureau was subdued after its demise until the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s.

CHAPTER 1 — INTRODUCTION

Birth of a “Peculiar Institution”

A Dutch trading ship delivered the first African slaves to America when it landed on the shores of the young Virginia colony in 1619.{1} The arrival marked the genesis of a terrible institution in the land that would become the United States. The demanding labor requirements associated with the growing of tobacco and cotton staples in the southern colonies ingrained slavery as a valid labor system to a large portion of a young nation, eventually weaving itself into the very fabric of an influential portion of southern society. A staggering two-and-a-half centuries and a deadly civil war passed before the United States officially terminated this “peculiar institution.”{2} The work to blot slavery’s stain from American soil proved daunting, a task made all the more difficult by drastically different visions for the way ahead from the country’s political leadership. The nation’s failure to properly resolve the many social ills and prejudices born from slavery still haunt portions of this country today.

For every difficult task, there must be a laborer. At the end of the United States’ Civil War, the Federal government had to reconcile four million former slaves to a society many of them were lukewarm to embrace.{3} At the same time, the larger white population was not exactly eager to bring these former outsiders into the civic fold. Despite the fact only twenty-five percent of southern white families owned slaves, the other seventy-five percent of the population did not rush to embrace the new freedmen as equal citizens.{4} Compromises would have to be made and prejudices would have to be countered. The Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen, and Abandoned Lands, better known as the Freedmen’s Bureau, would be the government’s laborer working the hostile race relations fields in the South following the war. Its placement within the War Department and staff of Union military officers yielded a reluctant respect for its operations in the defeated South; at the same time, many whites in the South grew resentful at its very presence and purpose.{5} Although envisioned to be the lead organization for integrating freedmen into American society, the Freedmen’s Bureau’s efforts to conduct stability operations with lasting effects in the post-Civil War South were limited by a hostile political situation and a society not ready to fully embrace radical social changes.

The Early Debate: A Snapshot of Slavery Politics 1776-1862

“We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. . . .”— The Declaration of Independence [emphasis added]

Questions on the role of blacks in America and the validity of slavery as an institution appeared on the national political stage as early as the American Revolution. Many opponents argued for its destruction as a plea to humanity noting the intense hypocrisy of the practice in a country founded on the famous words above from the Declaration of Independence. In 1776, Thomas Jefferson’s early draft of the Declaration included a condemnation of Great Britain for essentially subjecting the colonies to slavery. He removed the reference from the final version due to intense pressure from South Carolina and other southern states. Shortly after the Revolution, at least five northern states banned the practice in their state constitutions. Jefferson and other Founding Fathers including James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin Franklin, and George Washington went on to advocate a future for the nation without slavery through their writings and actions though many owned them.{6}

The debate quickly surfaced again during the conventions to draft a new American Constitution. Southern delegates, concerned northern states would have superior representation in the newly proposed House of Representatives, argued slaves should count in census numbers establishing state representation levels in the national government. New Englanders contended slaves should be counted for establishing national taxes under the new government framework. Pennsylvanian James Wilson offered the infamous three-fifths compromise to resolve the situation.{7} Critics countered if slaves were indeed to be counted as citizens then why not as citizens on equal footing with whites? On the other hand, if they were merely property, why were northern citizens not allowed to count cattle or sheep to bolster their representation in Congress?{8} Ultimately, the framers enabled the debate to continue after a cooling off period by mandating the new Congress would be unable to prohibit the institution prior to the year 1808.{9} Slavery survived and became an integral catalyst to the nation’s growth, “producing the cotton that fueled [America’s] early industrial revolution.”{10}

As the United States expanded westward, so did the debate. The political repercussions of each new state and territory were immense. New states meant new representatives and senators in Congress. Slavery’s advocates feared the balance of power could easily shift and threaten their way of life. South Carolina politician John S. Preston boldly declared in 1860, “Slavery is our king – slavery is our truth – slavery is our Divine Right.”{11} The election of Abraham Lincoln, the nation’s first Republican president, despite his failure to receive a single vote in nine Southern states showed “a united North [finally had] the power to determine the nation’s future” over Southern objections; calls for secession rang loudly from many Southern political elite.{12} South Carolina and six other states answered the call by 1 February 1861. In a mere four months, four other southern states joined the original seven forming the Confederate States of America thus dissolving the Union.{13}

Lincoln assumed the presidency on 4 March 1861 facing a national crisis unparalleled in the nation’s brief history. Despite the fact that slavery was the issue quietly fueling the nation’s divisiveness, emancipation was not Lincoln’s highest priority at the onset of war. Restoration of the Union garnered more support for the war effort initially in the North. Lincoln hoped to keep border slave states in the Union thus showing the secessionists he was willing to reconcile and allow for their quick return with all their “property.” However, as the war progressed, Confederates used slaves to support their war machine. The exodus of slaves to Federal forces entering Southern territory led Union generals to adopt the policy, established by General Benjamin F. Butler, which considered these fugitives as contraband now employed to support the Union cause. Radical Republicans and abolitionists seized the opportunity to end the government’s sanction of the subjugation of blacks in America.{14}

By mid-1862, Lincoln sensed the Union grew more supportive of emancipation. At the same time, he sought to quiet calls in Britain for official recognition of the Confederacy. Taking advantage of the Union victory by George B. McClellan over Robert E. Lee at Antietam, near Sharpsburg, Maryland, on 17 September 1862, Lincoln warned the Confederacy he would free its slaves if Rebel armies did not lay down arms by the end of the year. When the Confederate government refused to comply, Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation on 1 January 1863 freeing the slaves in Confederate-controlled territory in the South.{15} Reconstruction Era author Eric Foner noted the Proclamation thus, “transformed [the] war of armies into a conflict of societies.”{16} It also created a sense of urgency into the discussion of how to integrate the freed slaves into society after the war and what type of agency would be best suited to handle such a daunting task.

“What Shall We Do With The Negro?”{17}

With the onset of emancipation, the divided nation struggled to answer abounding social questions in regards to the contrabands as it looked to the end of the war:

1. What role would American society hold for the freedmen?

2. Would freedmen be allowed to exercise the same rights as whites or would they be free in name only?

3. Were freedmen truly to become citizens of the Union?

4. Would freedmen inherit a different form of indentured servitude as quickly as they dropped the yoke of slavery?{18}

Multiple ideas existed on how to integrate properly the black population and a wide range of options were considered by political leaders. Abraham Lincoln’s position seemed to change with time and experience. Out of politics in 1849, the prospect of slavery’s expansion in the burgeoning west brought Lincoln back onto the scene. In a speech in 1854, he decried the hypocrisy of slavery in a nation founded on liberty warning it deprived America of her influence around the world. Four years later, he confirmed he did not advocate black suffrage nor support blacks holding public office in his home state of Illinois. At the time, Lincoln favored the idea of moving the black population completely out of the country.{19} He advocated that very idea in August 1862 during a meeting at the White House with five local black leaders stating, “It is better for [the two races] to be separated.”{20} Lincoln went so far as to pursue an agreement to relocate former slaves to an island off the coast of Haiti in December of the same year.{21} It would take the performance of black soldiers in the Union army to make Lincoln finally see a future for the country inclusive of both races.{22}

As the president grappled for a solution capable of quickly ending the war and reuniting the country, the call began to spring forth for some type of freedmen’s affairs bureau to be the policy executor. The U.S. Congress’ Select Committee on Emancipation debated the merits of a bill to create just such a bureau. Martin Kalbfleisch, Democratic representative from New York, and Anthony L. Knapp, Democratic representative from Illinois, authored the minority opinion in a report submitted to the House of Representatives in January 1864. In it, Kalbfleisch and Knapp highlighted four major concerns with the scope of the bill and the proposed bureau.

The first concern focused squarely on the scope of government debate; did Congress have the legal authority to create such a bureau? Critics of the bill based their argument on a strict interpretation of the Constitution. Nowhere in the country’s short history could they identify a comparable piece of legislation aimed to benefit one class of people.{23} The bill would have the government provide preferential care to freed slaves over potentially just as equally disenfranchised groups of whites. After all, there was no call for a bureau of Dutchmen’s or Irishmen’s Affairs.{24}

The second major question facing Congress was could they legally tax citizens of the one state to benefit freedmen and their families in another state.{25} Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution specifically gave Congress the “Power To lay and collect Taxes . . . and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.”{26} For whatever reason, Congressional leaders failed to see this provision as the authority required in the original question. Perhaps more pertinent to opponents was the view slaves learned valuable skills from their masters enabling them to earn a living in a free labor society thus making it inconceivable to tax “poor and, p...

Table of contents

• Title page
• TABLE OF CONTENTS
• ABSTRACT
• CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION
• CHAPTER 2 - THE FREEDMEN’S BUREAU AND ANDREW JOHNSON
• CHAPTER 3 - CONGRESS TAKES OVER RECONSTRUCTION
• CHAPTER 4 - 1869-1872: A DIMINISHED FOCUS
• CHAPTER 5 - ANALYSIS
• CHAPTER 6 - CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
• APPENDIX A - FREEDMEN’S BUREAU ASSISTANT COMMISSIONERS
• APPENDIX B - SUMMARY OF BUREAU FUNDING
• APPENDIX C - SUMMARY OF BUREAU EXPENSES
• BIBLIOGRAPHY