Reporting from the SHA: “(Re)Constructing an Empire: The South and the Nation after the Civil War”

This panel presented at the 2019 Southern Historical Association meeting in Louisville, KY examined three topics of imperialism, military power, and Reconstruction. Panelists were Courtney Buchkoski (University of Oklahoma), Evan Rothera (Sam Houston State University), and Cecily Zander (Pennsylvania State University). Elliott West (University of Arkansas) presided and West and Greg Downs (University of California, Davis) commented.

The first paper by Courtney Buchkowski was titled “Lessons from Kansas: The New England Emigrant Aid Company and Imperial Projects in the Reconstruction Era.” She examined several attempts by Eli Thayer before, during, and after the Civil War to use targeted immigration to influence western and southern society. First, Thayer tried to funnel New Englanders into Kansas using the New England Emigrant Aid Company and financial funding in order to sway popular sovereignty away from slavery. The company played on threats to northern society and free labor to encourage northerners to move into the territory. Thayer did the same thing during the Civil War and Reconstruction to move northerners into the South to give them political influence there and change southern society. This first began in 1862 when Thayer saw an opportunity to capitalize on confiscated southern land; he thought that northerners needed to move into the South to teach southerners about free labor society. Later in 1862, he pivoted to the idea of resettling emancipated slaves into these areas, particularly with an idea of colonizing Florida with freed slaves led by intelligent northern black men. These efforts did not get much support from the North because it was apparent that this was a smokescreen for white settlement into the South. He continued these efforts in 1866 when he promoted Florida as an ideal place for New England families. He played up the nice weather and diminished the danger. Thayer claimed that southern whites would welcome northern settlement or would move further south to make way. He even bought a Florida newspaper to disseminate Republican ideas. By 1867 his plans for Florida had failed, however, because he had not raised enough money to support the venture. Thayer was more successful in Kansas, Buchkowski explained, because he could play on antebellum fears of slavery’s expansion. Things had changed a lot by Reconstruction, and the South was also very different than the West.

“The Complete Triumph of National Arms in the Cause of the Republican Constitutional Government: Anti-Imperialism and U.S./Mexico Relations” by Evan Rothera examined the immediate post-war period when U.S. forces were present along the southern border and turned their attention to the war in Mexico. This force has often been interpreted as passive—U.S. army forces sitting on the border but not actively engaging in the conflict between Mexico and the French. However, Rothera argued, there was aid going across the border and people were acting in that conflict. When we change the lens to focus on the U.S/Mexico border we see an anti-imperial effort instead of the theme of imperialism usually attached to the post-Civil War period. When looking west the United States is very imperialistic with its expansion and conflict with Native Americans, but looking south the country was anti-imperial because Americans supported Mexican efforts to prevent France setting up a monarchy in the country. While President Johnson did not officially put American troops into action, he also did not curtail aid and men going across the border to fight with the Mexicans. There were many calls to assist Mexico from the general public and high-ranking officials—many believed in the ideas of the Monroe Doctrine, thought that France’s actions against Mexico was an attack on the U.S., and saw Mexico as a “sister republic” that needed help to resist France. Because of this general support there is evidence of financial and military support (unofficially) going across the border and Rothera also examined a case where Sheridan may have allowed Mexican officials to recruit in the U.S. (which technically would be a violation of the 1818 neutrality act) and he certainly did not secure the border to prevent people moving across. Not only is there evidence of this porous border and U.S. anti-imperial action in support of Mexico, Rothera argues that this was a reorientation of the relationship with Mexico considering that only twenty years before the countries were fighting the Mexican-American War.

Cecily Zander presented the final paper, “The Great Task Remaining: The Reconstruction-Era Army in Texas.” Zander examined how the experiences of the army in Texas fit into broader Reconstruction. In the post-war period the army was the tool of the U.S. to claim the west, an imperialistic goal, but in Texas they were initially used for Reconstruction duty. Zander makes a comparison to the antebellum period when the west represented only 20% of the military, mostly a line of forts meant to maintain peace between Natives and settlers. This was typically frustrating duty for the men and was strictly military, not dealing with affairs of civil government. The Civil War transformed the military in the west to an after thought for five years and there was little military operating in Texas, but after the Civil War the military went back to Texas, largely to the border to show strength against the French. Men were not happy about this service because it was hard to keep volunteer soldiers in service after the Civil War ended. Volunteer saw this new task as outside what they enlisted for and Reconstruction duty did not seem to affect changes. Troops were not being used to protect settlers and they did not have the regular troops to send there, most of the military was kept in the eastern part of the state under Sheridan dealing with border affairs. Sending volunteer troops to the frontier would have caused more unrest among those troops. 1870 marks the end of Reconstruction in Texas as troops were redistributed away from the east where they were doing Reconstruction duty back to the west to the frontier. During the Civil War and until 1870, the lack of troops in western Texas caused the line of white settlement to face increasing attacks by Native Americans and fall back to the east. They would not regain the 1860 line of settlement until 1875. There were calls for militia forces to combat increased Native attacks, but there were fears that mustering former Confederates would cause problems so close to the end of the war. To conclude Zander argued that Reconstruction and the West have been seen as separate, but they are really intertwined and Texas proves a good example of this. She said that there were two armies: in the West the army performed traditional military roles, but in the South it was controlled by Congress and performing more civilian and government roles. The government took power away from the military during Reconstruction to manage their goals in the South, but it compromised the efficiency of the army and hurt U.S. efforts of expansion.

In West’s comments he asked Buchkowski why Thayer thought that New Englanders would be accepted in the South. He also wanted to know more about Thayer’s ideas about a black colony in Florida. He pointed out that Thayer was not an abolitionist, so what did he think the role of African-Americans would be? For Rothera’s paper, West asked about a possible connection to filibusters and what the Mexican side of the “sister republic” idea looked like. West connected Zander’s paper to all of the West and saw her research as part of the historiographical movement to a “greater Reconstruction” that looks at continental transformation during that period. He did counter some of Zander’s interpretation of previous historiography and argued that the army was not the prime way that the U.S. laid claim to the West. He mentioned gold, transportation, and technology as significant ways that Americans moved west and said that the army’s role was to step in when needed at trouble spots. Downs echoed many of West’s comments, especially how each paper tied into the idea of a “greater Reconstruction” or reinterpreting Reconstruction and westward expansion into a single story. In particular, he cautioned Zander to not make the army the sole connection between expansion and the state, and Rothera not to overstate the divide between imperial and anti-imperial action since there were still imperial ideas in the background of U.S. interest in Mexico’s fight against France.

Dr. Kathleen Logothetis Thompson earned her PhD in Nineteenth Century/Civil War America from West Virginia University, and also holds a M.A. from WVU and a B.A. from Siena College. Her research is on mental trauma and coping among Union soldiers and she is currently working on her first book, tentatively titled War on the Mind. She currently teaches history at several colleges and university and leads tours of Frank Lloyd Wright’s Fallingwater. Kathleen was a seasonal interpreter at Fredericksburg & Spotsylvania National Military Park for several years and is the co-editor of Civil Discourse.