Chapter 22 questions- These are due Monday, Dec. 9, 2013

Remember to check the schedule under upcoming deadlines for how the semester has been adjusted due to EOC week.

ALWAYS INCLUDE DATES AND NAMES IN YOUR ANSWERS!!!

1. How did the end of the war affect most Southerners’ views regarding their understanding of the union and their “lost cause?” What happened to most Confederate leaders?
2. How quickly was emancipation implemented? What tasks did most freedmen then set out to do and rights did they claim for the first time?
3. Who were the Exodusters, and how many were there? Where were they headed, and why? Why did this movement end?
4. What was the full name and mission of the Freedmen’s Bureau? Who led it? What was it most successful at? How did white Southerners view it, and why was that kind of spiteful? What precedent did this agency set in terms of government responsibility for citizens? What did Andrew Johnson do to it and why? What impact did this have on his presidency?
5. What factors had led to choosing Andrew Johnson as Lincoln’s vice president in 1864? What group in particular did he champion as a politician? Who were the leaders of the Radical Republicans who opposed him so vehemently?
6. What were the basic differences between presidential and congressional Reconstruction. Start by comparing Lincoln’s plan for Reconstruction with the Wade Davis Bill. Which was more lenient, and why? How was Johnson’s plan unique, and which one was it most similar to? What is the “conquered provinces” theory, and who promoted it? Why were Congressional Republicans concerned about what would happen if the Southern states rapidly regained their representation in Congress?
7. What was the main purpose of the Black Codes? What were the major provisions of these? How did Northerners interpret these kinds of laws?
8. What were the main provisions of the Civil Rights Bill of 1866? What happened to this bill, and why? How is this law connected to the 14th Amendment? What did the 14th Amendment do? What did it say about Confederate officials? Which Southern states ratified the 14th Amendment in 1866?
9. What did the 15th Amendment do? Why were feminists disappointed in it (as well as with the 14th Amendment?
10. Discuss the activities of other groups besides the Freedmen’s Bureau that attempted to help freedmen—the Union League and the American Missionary Association, in particular. How did African American women get involved in securing rights for blacks, and what limits were placed upon them?
11. What were “Radical Reconstruction” governments’ accomplishments? How corrupt were they compared to governments elsewhere? What are scalawags and carpetbaggers?
12. Where, when how, and why did the Ku Klux Klan rise up originally? What were its goals? What attempts did the federal government make to suppress the Klan (include dates!!!!)?
13. Why did Congress finally attempt to impeach Johnson? What was the specific charge? Was this legitimate? How did Johnson escape?
14. How and why did we attain Alaska? Why was this important?
15. What were the basic philosophical controversies that were confronted during Reconstruction, besides how to readmit Southern states to full membership in the Union?
16. Make a chart detailing the intents of each of these laws:
– Military Reconstruction Act
-Tenure of Office Act
-Freedmen’s Bureau Act
-Force Acts

Ex parte Merryman and Ex parte Milligan

Be able to discuss with me: was the Lincoln administration and the Union army right in holding John Merryman or Lambdin Milligan (what an unfortunate name!)?

Here is a nice summary from PBS regarding Ex parte Milligan: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/antebellum/landmark_exparte.html

Here is a great discussion of the problem of habeas corpus in wartime in general: http://www.etymonline.com/cw/habeas.htm . This provides the background info to the case of John Merryman and Lambdin Milligan.

Excerpts from the decision of Ex parte Merryman (having to do with the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus by Chief Justice Taney:

“…The case, then, is simply this: A military officer residing in Pennsylvania issues an order to arrest a citizen of Maryland, upon vague and indefinite charges, without any proof, so far as appears. Under this order his house is entered in the night; he is seized as a prisoner, and conveyed to Fort McHenry, and there kept in close confinement. And when a habeas corpus is served on the commanding officer, requiring him to produce the prisoner before a Justice of the Supreme Court, in order that he may examine into the legality of the imprisonment, the answer of the officer is that he is authorized by the President to suspend the writ of habeas corpus at his discretion, and, in the exercise of that discretion, suspends it in this case, and on that ground refuses obedience to the writ.

As the case comes before me, therefore, I understand that the President not only claims the right to suspend the writ of habeas corpus himself, at his discretion, but to delegate that discretionary power to a military officer, and to leave it to him to determine whether he will or will not obey judicial process that may be served upon him.

No official notice has been given to the courts of justice, or to the public, by proclamation or otherwise, that the President claimed this power, and had exercised it in the manner stated in the return. And I certainly listened to it with some surprise, for I had supposed it to be one of those points of constitutional law upon which there is no difference of opinion, and that it was admitted on all hands that the privilege of the writ could not be suspended except by act of Congress….

The clause in the Constitution which authorizes the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is in the ninth section of the first article.

This article is devoted to the Legislative Department of the United States, and has not the slightest reference to the Executive Department….

But the documents before me show that the military authority in this case has gone far beyond the mere suspension of the privilege of the writ ofhabeas corpus. It has, by force of arms, thrust aside the judicial authorities and officers to whom the Constitution has confided the power and duty of interpreting and administering the laws, and substituted a military government in its place, to be administered and executed by military officers. For at the time these proceedings were had against John Merryman, the District Judge of Maryland–the commissioner appointed under the act of Congress–the District Attorney and the Marshal, all resided in the city of Baltimore, a few miles only from the home of the prisoner. Up to that time there had never been the slightest resistance or obstruction to the process of any Court or judicial officer of the United States in Maryland, except by the military authority. And if a military officer, or any other person, had reason to believe that the prisoner had committed any offence against the laws of the United States, it was his duty to give information of the fact and the evidence to support it to the District Attorney, and it would then have become the duty of that officer to bring the matter before the District Judge or Commissioner, and if there was sufficient legal evidence to justify his arrest, the Judge or Commissioner would have issued his warrant to the Marshal to arrest him, and, upon the hearing of the party, would have held him to bail, or committed him for trial, according to the character of the offense as it appeared in the testimony, or would have discharged him immediately if there was not sufficient evidence to support the accusation. There was no danger of any obstruction or resistance to the action of the civil authorities, and therefore no reason whatever for the interposition of the military. And yet, under these circumstances, a military officer, stationed in Pennsylvania, without giving any information to the District Attorney, and without any application to the judicial authorities, assumes to himself the judicial power in the District of Maryland; undertakes to decide what constitutes the crime of treason or rebellion; what evidence (if, indeed, he required any) is sufficient to support the accusation and justify the commitment; and commits the party, without having a hearing even before himself, to close custody in a strongly garrisoned fort, to be there held, it would seem, during the pleasure of those who committed him.

The Constitution provides, as I have before said, that “no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” It declares that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.” It provides that the party accused shall be entitled to a speedy trial in a court of justice.

And these great and fundamental laws, which Congress itself could not suspend, have been disregarded and suspended, like the writ of habeas corpus, by a military order, supported by force of arms. Such is the case now before me; and I can only say that if the authority which the Constitution has confided to the judiciary department and judicial officers may thus upon any pretext or under any circumstances be usurped by the military power at its discretion, the people of the United States are no longer living under a Government of laws, but every citizen holds life, liberty, and property at the will and pleasure of the army officer in whose military district he may happen to be found….”

Full text of Taney’s decision here: http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=442 He even brings up Aaron Burr!

The 150th Anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation

Last January 1 was the 150th anniversary of the date in 1863 when the Emancipation Proclamation took effect.

Here is an actual photocopy from the National Archives: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/featured_documents/emancipation_proclamation/.

Here is a really good article from the Atlantic Monthly which provides some historical evaluation of this important document: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/01/the-wholly-misunderstood-emancipation-proclamation/266741/

Eric Foner on the Changing Views of Reconstruction

US Citizenship Test

Give yourself the test! Click here: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2011/0104/Could-you-pass-a-US-citizenship-test/Who-signs-bills?cmpid=prc:ctzn:d

DBQ pictures- clean version

If you have lost your copy of the DBQ packet, a .pdf file can be found here:

Reconstruction DBQ

Document I is difficult to read. Below is a cleaner version:

I have found the other picture, but I can’t get to the menu now here at the school, so check back here after I get home and I will put it right here.

“The First Vote”

Rare Civil Photographs to be auctioned

This is interesting: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2246788/Rare-Civil-War-photographs-letters-revealed-auction-including-signatures-Declaration-signers.html

Thanks, Chris A!

The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878

In the wake of the end of Reconstruction in 1877, federal law was enacted to make illegal using federal active duty troops as enforcers of laws on American soil except in emergency circumstances– in other words, to make sure nothing like the Military reconstruction of the South could ever happen again. Thus, to this day, domestic military policy is governed by the Posse Comitatus Act. Read here (http://civilliberty.about.com/od/waronterror/a/posse_act.htm) for a summary of the law and its consequences.

Interestingly, there has recently been some discussion that the law needs to be changed particularly in light of the creation of the Department of Homeland Security in the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. This law is the reason why the National Guard, rather than the regular military, is used after national disasters, and, in a limited manner, along our nation’s borders. But the law has its roots in Southern resentment of the use of federal troops to enforce the laws regarding the treatment of freedmen during and after the Civil War.

The Colfax Massacre

Great summary from PBS: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/grant-colfax/

Supreme Court agrees to take up gay marriage question

Perfect timing for our discussion of the 14th Amendment!

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324640104578165363433361742.html