Jeffersonian vs Linconian Ideals: The Southern Fear of Equality During Reconstruction

In the founding of America, the Jeffersonian vision of a country for white men was established. In practice, slavery secured this vision as it allowed white plantation owners to own the men who could rival their power. In abolishing slavery, however, Abraham Lincoln granted equal opportunity and liberty to the enslaved; thereby, in the eyes of many white businessmen, contesting the power of the white man. The formerly enslaved had longed for equal opportunity and so upon achieving it, they quickly worked their way up in society: During Reconstruction around 2,000 black Americans held public office, including 16 seats in Congress. (The Conversation) This further cemented the concerns of the white businessman; and so, many white extremists felt that they had to halt this progress while they still could. Through methods like sharecropping and the black codes, as well as through the use of incredible violence to secure those systems, black Americans were oppressed, and ultimately were blocked from achieving their dream of freely working and independently living. Their dreams of economic freedom having been ruined created a need for a civil rights movement rooted in equal opportunity, not in seeking reparations.

One fear of many whites during Reconstruction was that a newfound influx of available black labor would take black people away from plantations and lead them to other “white jobs.” If black people were no longer working on plantations, the plantation owners would lose labor and black people would begin to work elsewhere, taking up spots previously reserved for whites. To combat this, accessing education was made incredibly difficult. The Union as It Was, a political cartoon created in 1874, accurately depicts a burnt-down schoolhouse to the right of a lynched black man. The image, therebye, directly correlates a black child attending school to the consequence of their being lynched. Formerly enslaved people, through not having an education, were encouraged to work in sharecropping. They were enticed by their having already mastered picking cotton, as well as the lack of job opportunities available without having an education. In sharecropping, the plantation owner has incredible power over the laborer, and the laborer has little control over their work (a relationship not dissimilar to that of an enslaver and the enslaved). As Henry Blake, a freedman who had taken to sharecropping in the early 20th century, explains, “No matter how good account you kept, you had to go by [the plantation owners] account” (Henry Blake) The lack of education in planters allowed whites to once again regain control over black laborers. By taking advantage of their heightened education, white men were able to take not only their cut of the profit made from cotton but also part of the cropper’s cut. Along with having to buy the tools necessary, the seeds to plant, and the necessities to sustain their family, planters had to also split their pay with others. In addition to their incredibly small income, which Blake later describes as only being enough to buy overalls and food, croppers had no guarantee of when they would ever receive their income. Plantation owners would take “a portion of every cropper’s part of the cotton to be made by [the plantation owner] when and where [he] chose to sell” (FTR 39 A Sharecroppers Contract) In having the right to take cotton made by planters and sell when and where he chooses, the plantation owner secures authority over the planters; the product is thereby not private. Through having their money taken, and their business controlled, the formerly enslaved were working under conditions not dissimilar to those of enslavement. Their dreams of economic freedom and of the ability to own private property were halted as they lived and worked on somebody else’s land, did not have control over their business, had to split their income, and had to live in subservience to a white overseer. It is therefore quite perplexing that the formerly enslaved would choose to continue under such conditions, though it is simply due to an inability to leave. Planters would amass such incredible debt that they could not find new employment.

Another way the newly freed black Americans were prevented from realizing their dream of economic freedom was through arrests and violence. The aforementioned Black Codes were a set of laws originating from the Mississippi that spread across the United States and focused on suppressing black freedmen. The Black Codes state in Section 2 of Vagrant Law that “all freedmen, free Negroes, and mulattoes in this state over the age of eighteen years found . . . with no lawful employment or business…[will be] imprisoned at the discretion of the court.” (The Black Codes) This clause made unemployment illegal and whilst prison time would be short, one could be re-imprisoned upon not regaining employment. Due to the 13th Amendment, slave-like servitude was permitted within these prisons. This meant that being imprisoned included returning to a slave-like status, once again sacrificing one’s economic freedoms; one had no way of achieving economic freedom if they were incarcerated and working for free. Much like a slave, they would live underneath the wardens, have no private possessions, and work hours of labor for free. Furthermore, many would be unjustly imprisioned under false pretenses as there was an incredible incentive for white people -especially those of lower income- to lock up black Americans: free labor makes greater profit for companies and cheaper goods for consumers. Not only did extremist whites use imprisonment as a means to oppress black people, extremist groups would enact terrorism as a fear-mongering and suppression tactic. In the testimony of Harriet Postle, it is noted that the horrific and violent acts committed towards her by the KKK were done in search of her husband. In looking for him, the KKK asked her if she “knew where [her] husband [was]” (Testimony of Harriet Postle) before attacking her and her kids for lying in regard to his supposed whereabouts. The KKK would break into homes and attack those living there, as a means to exert power over blacks, and cement their superiority: if a white man could at any time break into one’s home and murder his kids, black people had plenty of incentive to do as he wished. The Klan wished all members to be “opposed to negro equality…[and support] re-enfranchisement…of the white man” (Organization and Principles of the Ku Klux Klan) Through placing white Americans as disenfranchised, and black equality as negative, many were led to believe that blacks must be killed or be returned to subservience to secure white power. Furthermore, when the white man’s situation was described as so dire, people were incentivized to act quickly and to disenfranchise blacks by any means necessary. Afterward, thousands of Klansmen took to the streets to suppress the enfranchisement of black people. The subsequent fear of violence caused many black people not to chase their dream of economic and political enfranchisement as it could lead to Klansmen harming them and their families. Furthermore, in the eyes and words of the KKK, the only way in which peace can be achieved is through a return to inequality. The problem is that the ideas of the KKK and the dreams of the formerly enslaved people are mutually exclusive: whites can’t be in complete power while blacks have equality. Additionally, due to the vague phrasing of the constitution, both of their arguments could be bent to have a constitutional basis and so they both feel entitled to their desired destiny.

Ultimately, the dreams of black Americans during Reconstruction, while they aligned with what Lincoln had promised them, were not awarded by society. While on paper, black Americans had equal economic opportunity as their white counterparts, in practice this was not the case. Black people were blocked from education and forced into slave-like conditions in sharecropping and imprisonment. Furthermore, they were forced into inferiority and subservience by their jobs and by extremist groups such as the KKK. In modern times, a discussion of why reparations were not awarded to formerly enslaved people in reconstruction, or to their relatives after the 1960s civil rights movement, has become increasingly popular. In reconstruction, reparations were economically dubious and would not be agreed to by those who would owe -in the case of reconstruction, the South. With the fear of the inability to reform and rebuild the Union, the reparations policy was not implemented. Similar reasoning to the latter is often the response by many to the question of why the 1960s civil rights movements did not secure reparations. While appeasement politics did play a part in reparations not being granted, the more relevent reason they were not awarded is that reparations were not wanted by any Black Americans. Martin Luther King Jr, a prominent voice in the civil rights movement, explained in his 1967 book Where We Go From Here that “No amount of gold could provide an adequate compensation for the exploitation and humiliation of the Negro in America down through the centuries.” (King Where We Go From Here) It was not money which the disenfranchised black Americans wished for, but equal economic opportunity. They did not wish to be saved by the charity of white handouts, nor did they wish to continue reliance upon government programs, Black Americans wanted the ability to make their own money. They had trusted white Americans to control their post-slavery reconstruction, through subsidies and other attempted aid, but instead were granted further inferiority and similar economic situations to before reconstruction. Furthermore, reparations are a temporary solution, whereas economic equality is a permanent solution. Being paid a sum of money, but not being allowed the means to fairly amass wealth, means that future generations would face disenfranchisement and poverty. This idea ties to the cliche proverb of teaching a man to fish. If reparations are granted, then the generation they are given to may be granted moderate wealth; though, if economic freedom is awarded, future generations will all be able to secure economic prosperity. Through being simply granted economic freedom, black Americans can finally secure their Linconian dream, and create an America which is for them as well as others.