COLUMNS

Liberty Belle

The Acts of Reconstruction and the Destruction of the Union



Ask most people with a basic knowledge of history about the Acts of Reconstruction and you will probably discover that most of them were taught that particular legislation had something to do with the rebuilding of the South after the Civil War. After all, most of the battles were fought in the South and pictures of the towns and cities shows mass destruction similar to pictures of London after the blitz in World War II.



But like much of history, information about the Acts of Reconstruction has been twisted to the point that few people know or care about the truth. Perhaps no legislation has changed the destination of the Union more that these despicable acts that were put into place for nefarious reasons by using chicanery and deception.



So what are the Acts of Reconstruction and who brought them to fruition? The answers may surprise you.



While some may think these individuals where driven by passion to right wrongs, that is only part of the story. There were a number of members of Congress known as the Radical Republicans who were motivated by a desire to punish the South and to use the opportunity to transfer power from the people and the states to the Federal (national) government.



Liberty Belle The Declaration

2019-Jul-04 Absolute control

2019-Apr-09 Hunger: a compelling need or desire for food. Part II

2018-Jun-11 Hunger: A compelling need, or a desire for food

2018-Jun-06 Valor or dishonor, Part II

2018-May-16 Valor or dishonor?

2018-May-07 More... A devout abolitionist, Congressman Thaddeus Stephens of Pennsylvania was one such man and his words made it clear than bringing the South to their knees was part of his agenda. He said: "Strip the proud nobility of their bloated estates, reduce them to a level with plain republicans, send forth to labor, and teach their children to enter the workshops or handle the plow, and you will thus humble proud traitors." Never mind that only about 3% of Southerners owned slaves or possessed bloated estates, and they did not consider themselves to be traitors, but only seceding from a union that they had created. (There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits secession.) As far as proud nobility, it is clear that kind of attitude found no monopoly in the South.



Just as there is vast ignorance about the Acts of Reconstruction, there is probably equal or greater confusion about the Fourteenth Amendment. Most people will say it gave freed slaves citizenship and civil rights, and while correct, it is only a small part of the amendment. Section I states: "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; not shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."



To further understand the intent of the 14th Amendment, read the words of James G. Blaine, a congressman from Maine and a staunch supporter: "As the vicious theory of State-rights has been constantly at enmity with the true spirit of Nationality, the Organic Law of the Republic should be amended that no standing-room for the heresy [of State-rights] would be left."



The consequences  either unintended or by design- turned us from a union of states to a nation with a powerful centralized government  just the opposite of what our Founders intended. Here's what James Madison said about a national government in Federalist Paper #39: "The idea of a national government involves in it, not only an authority over the individual citizens, but an indefinite supremacy over all persons and things. . . In this relation, then, the proposed government cannot be deemed a national one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only."



We can most assuredly conclude that no State would have ever ratified the Constitution in 1787 if the words of Congressman Blaine had been used instead of those of Madison. Those people did not see the idea of state-rights or the right of sovereignty to be vicious at all.



But we have the right to amend the Constitution according to Article V. So because ideas and beliefs had evolved, it was the right of the states to amend to suit the will of the people. But what if it was not the will of the people? The next article will look at other parts of the Acts of Reconstruction, the 14th Amendment, the ratification process, what happened and how it affects us all in the 21st century. Ask most people with a basic knowledge of history about the Acts of Reconstruction and you will probably discover that most of them were taught that particular legislation had something to do with the rebuilding of the South after the Civil War. After all, most of the battles were fought in the South and pictures of the towns and cities shows mass destruction similar to pictures of London after the blitz in World War II.But like much of history, information about the Acts of Reconstruction has been twisted to the point that few people know or care about the truth. Perhaps no legislation has changed the destination of the Union more that these despicable acts that were put into place for nefarious reasons by using chicanery and deception.So what are the Acts of Reconstruction and who brought them to fruition? The answers may surprise you.While some may think these individuals where driven by passion to right wrongs, that is only part of the story. There were a number of members of Congress known as the Radical Republicans who were motivated by a desire to punish the South and to use the opportunity to transfer power from the people and the states to the Federal (national) government.A devout abolitionist, Congressman Thaddeus Stephens of Pennsylvania was one such man and his words made it clear than bringing the South to their knees was part of his agenda. He said: "Strip the proud nobility of their bloated estates, reduce them to a level with plain republicans, send forth to labor, and teach their children to enter the workshops or handle the plow, and you will thus humble proud traitors." Never mind that only about 3% of Southerners owned slaves or possessed bloated estates, and they did not consider themselves to be traitors, but only seceding from a union that they had created. (There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits secession.) As far as proud nobility, it is clear that kind of attitude found no monopoly in the South.Just as there is vast ignorance about the Acts of Reconstruction, there is probably equal or greater confusion about the Fourteenth Amendment. Most people will say it gave freed slaves citizenship and civil rights, and while correct, it is only a small part of the amendment. Section I states: "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; not shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."To further understand the intent of the 14th Amendment, read the words of James G. Blaine, a congressman from Maine and a staunch supporter: "As the vicious theory of State-rights has been constantly at enmity with the true spirit of Nationality, the Organic Law of the Republic should be amended that no standing-room for the heresy [of State-rights] would be left."The consequences  either unintended or by design- turned us from a union of states to a nation with a powerful centralized government  just the opposite of what our Founders intended. Here's what James Madison said about a national government in Federalist Paper #39: "The idea of a national government involves in it, not only an authority over the individual citizens, but an indefinite supremacy over all persons and things. . . In this relation, then, the proposed government cannot be deemed a national one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only."We can most assuredly conclude that no State would have ever ratified the Constitution in 1787 if the words of Congressman Blaine had been used instead of those of Madison. Those people did not see the idea of state-rights or the right of sovereignty to be vicious at all.But we have the right to amend the Constitution according to Article V. So because ideas and beliefs had evolved, it was the right of the states to amend to suit the will of the people. But what if it was not the will of the people? The next article will look at other parts of the Acts of Reconstruction, the 14th Amendment, the ratification process, what happened and how it affects us all in the 21st century.

Nancy Murdoch is a native North Carolinian, born and raised in the western part of this great state. After marrying the Marine she met at Brevard College, they traveled from one coast to the other, with a stopover in Japan. After retirement, they opened a custom picture framing shop in Havelock which they operated for over 25 years. Over the years, she has been a wife, golfer, a watercolorist, a gardener, a mom and a grandmother, and an avid reader. After serving as the chair of Coastal Carolina Taxpayers Association, she now serves as the Education Chair. Saturday mornings find her facilitating classes about our Founding Principles and related topics or leading a book study. She also serves on the Legislative Action Committee, which often entails trips to Raleigh to talk to our elected officials. Print Email Comment Share