I noticed that there are official “readmission dates” for the states that seceeded to the Confederacy.
My question is that since the Union never considered the seccession of the Confederate States to be valid, why would they need to be readmitted. I would think that as soon as the State Legislatures could convene, they could appoint Senators and either the governors could appoint temporary temporary Representatives to Congress, or else as soon as the next election cycle rolled around new Reps could be elected. Why the need for formal readmission?
This is a guess, but maybe it was more for the states which seceded to have that formality to “re-join” than it was for the United States to accept them.
The key to the answer is that the federal government had to recognize (or validate) the state legislatures which were going to be convening. The legislatures that were in office at the time of the Civil War were the ones which voted to secede. The federal government also had to approve the new state constitutions, which were supposed to prohibit slavery. In order (IIRC): new state constitution, federal approval of same, new legislature and governor elected.
Besides what Monty said, I beleive the formerly confederated states were also “asked” to repeal, invalidate, or otherwise do a take-back on their secession declaration.
Besides what Monty said, I beleive the formerly confederated states were also “asked” to repeal, invalidate, or otherwise do a take-back on their secession declaration.
Here’s an interesting place to start looking, Zev. It’s about the secession and readmission of Texas, and mentions some of the other states.
In addition to the problem that the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments had not been ratified by the southern states, there were other considerations that varied from state to state. (The war continued, for example, in Texas after the surrender at Appomattox.)
The acts which readmitted the Confederate states specified that they were being readmitted to representation in Congress, rather than being readmitted to the Union, for precisely that reason.
Much of the controversy of Reconstruction revolved around what the Southern states needed to do before Congress would re-admit their representatives. Andrew Johnson wanted only to require that each state call a constitutional convention, change its state constitution to abolish slavery, and elect a legislature which would ratify the 13th amendment (abolishing slavery nationally) to the federal constitution. Congress eventually insisted on more far-reaching change requiring the states to grant civil and political equality to African Americans.
When Lincoln was assassinated, those that thought the southern states should be punished were left in power. A lot of the resentment that is found in the south is not so much about losing the war, but Reconstruction. Being called a “Carpet Bagger” used to be the worst thing someone could be called. The reason that history says that Johnson was such a bad president also has a lot to do with his opposition to Reconstruction.
The above is an admirable goal, it is just too bad that it wasn’t the real reason for Reconstruction. If granting civil and political equality was the real goal it only took about 100 years for most of the goals to be realized and well as a lot more legislation spear headed by another president from the south.