Chapter 1: The Remaking of a Union State

Welcome to Last Minute Lecture.

This free chapter overview is designed to help students review and understand key concepts.

These summaries supplement not replaced the original textbook and may not be redistributed or resold.

For complete coverage, always consult the official text.

Welcome back to the Deep Dive, the place where we dig into history and, you know, try to figure out what makes it tick.

Today we are wading right into the thick of it in just after the Civil War.

The Union Army occupied the city in 62 and everything got turned upside down socially, politically.

It was chaos.

Total upheaval.

And we're zooming in on those first crucial years of Reconstruction, roughly, let's say, 1863 up to the early 20th century, but focusing hard on that immediate postwar period.

Okay, let's unpack this then.

Our sources paint this really vivid picture.

There's a New York Times piece from 1863 saying the war had, quote, given speech to millions who had hitherto been tongue -tied.

Sounds pretty optimistic.

Yeah, it really does.

But right there is the paradox we're going to explore because that same writer immediately points out that while these millions found their voice, they hardly spoke with one voice.

Ah, okay.

So not united them.

Not at all.

And our mission today for you listening is to sort of navigate this messy struggle.

You've got three main groups really battling it out.

The old planter class, the white city workers, the mechanics, and the black population, both free people of color and the newly freed slaves.

And the big question is why couldn't they team up?

I mean, the white workers and the black population both had reasons to dislike the old system, right?

Why no collaboration?

That's the puzzle.

The sources make it clear.

Almost from day one, they were living in separate material and ideological worlds, just fundamentally divided by the they did and what they thought freedom actually meant.

So let's start with the union occupation.

The goal was to get civilian rule back up and running quickly.

Right.

Lincoln wanted that.

And they looked for support from, well, loyal southerners, sure, but also really leaned on the big immigrant groups, Irish and Germans mainly, making up something like two fifths of the city, a huge chunk.

And these immigrants, they weren't fans of the planter elite.

Generally, no, they didn't feel much loyalty there.

And many oppose slavery, but often for economic reasons.

Competition, right?

Slave labor drove down wages for free white workers.

Exactly.

Although you did have some like the German 48ers who had genuine, you know, anti aristocracy ideals.

They'd come from Europe after revolutions there.

But and this seems to be the crucial, but that anti slavery feeling didn't mean they supported black equality.

No, absolutely not.

And that division pops up almost immediately.

In 1863, you see the white craft workers getting organized.

They formed the Working Men's National Union League.

They wanted to shape the new Louisiana.

But on their terms, their terms being what exactly?

What was their philosophy?

It was rooted in this idea of artisanal republicanism.

Basically, they saw themselves the skilled workers, the mechanics as the real producers, the essential citizens.

They actually declared the mechanic class the very cornerstone of a republican government.

Strong words.

And what they demand based on that?

Very clearly.

Voting rights for all white men aged 18 and up.

And a new state constitution focused squarely on securing the rights of white men.

Notice the emphasis.

Yeah, very noticeable.

So this artisanal republicanism, it linked being independent, owning property, maybe having skill with being a virtuous citizen.

Precisely.

And because they define themselves that way, they looked at black people, whether they'd been or were newly freed, and saw them as, well, the opposite.

Lacking those qualities needed for citizenship.

A kind of negative reference group, as the source puts it.

Okay, but hang on.

If they hated slavery partly because it hurt their wages, why wouldn't they just push for better wages for everyone?

Instead, they wanted,

what was it?

Colonization.

They actually advocated for the removal of all people of African descent from the entire state.

Wow, that's extreme.

It should just remove the competition entirely.

That seems to be the logic.

It wasn't just about wages.

It was about protecting their perceived social status, their craft monopolies.

Black workers weren't potential allies.

They were a fundamental threat to their identity and economic power.

All right, so politically, how did this play out initially?

Well, these white workers initially threw their weight behind a moderate unionist named Michael Hahn.

And they actually got some wins in the 1864 state constitution.

Like what?

Key labor demands,

a $2 daily minimum wage for public work, and a nine hour day on public projects.

That was a real shift away from planter power, at least on paper.

That beeper.

That sounds like it didn't last.

Didn't last long at all.

Within a year, Hahn was out, replaced by a guy named James Madison Wells, much more aligned with the old planter aristocracy.

He brought back the contract system for public work, slashed wages.

Ouch.

The workers must have been furious.

Oh, they were.

Huge protests.

They accused the administration of trying to overrule the constitution by ditching those labor laws.

But the political tide was turning back.

Ex -Confederates were regrouping into the National Democratic Party and their platform was explicitly white supremacy.

So the white workers' initial political strategy kind of fell apart.

What did they do then?

They shifted focus.

After November 1865,

the big push became the 8 -hour movement.

And this wasn't just about being less tired.

It was framed as a core issue of citizenship.

How so?

Their argument was that working too long, like 10 or 12 hours a day, led to physical prostration, sure, but also mental inactivity and even moral turpitude.

The real problem.

It robbed white men of the time needed for necessary information and intelligence.

Meaning time to read, discuss politics, be informed citizens.

Exactly.

You exhausted to think.

There was this popular idea pushed by labor leaders like Richard Trevelyk to divide the day neatly into three eights.

Eight hours for labor, eight for repose, and eight for recreation and mental culture.

Sounds reasonable.

Did they try to demonstrate this popular support?

They did.

In March 1866, they had this grand procession in New Orleans.

Maybe 800 to 1 ,000 workers marching, showing off their trades with banners.

The ship carpenters even carried a miniature steamship they'd built, a real display of craft pride.

But did it work politically?

Did they get the eight hour day?

Nope.

They formed the Union Working Men's Party specifically to push for eight hour laws, but they lost badly in the May 1866 elections.

The Democrats' appeals to white solidarity, you know, racial unity against black advancement, just proved much more powerful than the labor agenda.

So the white working class largely ended up back with the Democrats.

By 1868, yeah, most had given up on independent labor politics and fell back in line with the Democratic Party, seeing it as the best defense against what they feared as black government.

Okay, let's switch tracks then.

While all this is happening with white labor, what's going on in the black community?

How are they organizing politically and economically?

Well, the black community wasn't monolithic either.

There was a significant class divide going back before the war.

You had the established elite, the Jean de Coullier, often French -speaking, educated, sometimes wealthy property owners.

And then the vast majority were?

The newly freed people, ex -slaves, mostly impoverished, facing immense challenges just surviving.

How did the black elite approach politics initially?

At first, some tried to distance themselves, seeking voting rights only for the free -born, educated black men like themselves, trying to maintain that status distinction.

But that changed.

It did.

By 1865, they realized their future was tied to everyone else.

As the source says, indissolubly bound up with that of the Negro race.

So they formed the National Equal Rights League to advocate more broadly.

And they were aware of the harsh realities facing the freedmen.

Oh, absolutely.

They knew about the repressive black codes being passed across the South, the really coercive contract labor system planters were using, often described as just mitigated bondage.

Even a stabbing to the city wasn't safe.

Police harassment and vagrancy laws were used to force people back to plantation work.

So what was the elite's message to the freedmen?

They pushed the standard free labor ideology.

Work hard, be diligent, thrifty, focus on moral uplift.

But they weren't naive.

The black newspaper, The Tribune, acknowledged that real free labor was not yet an accomplished fact.

And they had that great line for the planters complaining about workers.

Right.

When planters whined the Negro won't work, the Tribune shot back, telling them to try the potency of cash.

Pay fair wages, basically.

It really does boil down to that, doesn't it?

But achieving that potency of cash was the whole struggle.

Exactly.

And that struggle explodes onto the scene on the waterfront.

The war completely changed who worked the docks.

How so?

Commerce dried up during the war.

A lot of white workers left for the army, either enlisting or drafted.

When trade started picking up again under union occupation, employers turned heavily to black workers.

Why?

The sources are blunt.

Because black labor is cheaper than white.

Okay, so that sets the stage for conflict.

And it didn't take long, right?

December 1865.

Right, then.

You have the screwmen's benevolent association going on strike.

Now these guys were key.

The screwmen.

They're the skilled ones.

Highly skilled, yeah.

And all white.

They had the crucial job of using these huge jack screws to pack cotton bales super tightly into ship holds.

They were the highest paid workers on the docks.

But the work was irregular, so they struck for a big raise demanding six or seven dollars a day.

And the employers'

reaction?

Predictable.

They threatened to replace the white strikers with black workers.

So did the white screwmen try to, like, build an alliance?

Reach out?

No.

The opposite.

They used violence.

They patrolled the levies with chilleris, basically wooden clubs,

intimidating black workers, forcing them off the docks, or sometimes forcing them to join the white strikers' procession against their will.

Just pure coercion, then?

Pretty much.

The Tribune newspaper observed really sharply that the screwmen only extended the hand of the fellowship as a tactic, out of mere policy, simply to control the labor supply and keep black workers from undercutting them.

But the black workers didn't just accept this.

No.

They saw an opportunity in the chaos.

The unskilled black longshoremen launched their own strike, demanding raises for themselves up to six dollars a day in some cases.

Things got heated.

Small riots broke out.

Stones thrown at police trying to break it up.

So two simultaneous strikes.

One white and skilled, one black and unskilled.

How did they end?

Very differently.

The black strikers were quickly crushed.

Employers brought in replacements.

The provost, marshal, the military police stepped in to protect the employers' right to hire strikebreakers.

Arrests were made.

Failure.

But the white screwmen?

They won.

Because their skill was essential, employers couldn't easily replace them.

They were, as the source says, masters of the situation.

They got their wage demands met.

That's a stark difference.

What lesson did the black elite take from this whole episode?

They actually criticized both the strikers and the employers for disrupting commerce.

But they specifically warned black workers against striking, arguing that trying to create a labor monopoly, even an interracial one, violated free market principles and was ultimately self -defeating.

Order and free competition were the priorities.

So stability over worker power, even for fair wages?

That seemed to be the prevailing view from the leadership, yes.

This underlying tension, the violence, it all just kept simmering.

And then it boiled over catastrophically in July 1866.

The New Orleans riot.

Yes.

A horrific event.

White moms, including police, attacked a peaceful session of black people and white Republicans who were trying to reconvene the 1864 Constitutional Convention, aiming to get black suffrage included.

Around 46 black people were killed, many wounded.

And this had national consequences?

Huge consequences.

It shot us the North.

It convinced Republicans in Congress that President Andrew Johnson's lenient reconstruction policy wasn't working, that southern states couldn't be trusted.

This riot was a direct catalyst for Congress, imposing military reconstruction in 1867.

Putting the South under military governors, how did that change things on the ground in New Orleans for black workers?

It led to a huge surge in black political activity.

Mass meetings, marches, forming Republican clubs, raising funds.

Suddenly they had the vote, protected by the army.

White started complaining that black laborers were always neglecting their occupations to go to political events.

And the political focus for the black elite and the Republican leadership became.

The new state constitution of 1868, particularly the civil rights clauses, things like desegregated schools, and especially Article 13, which guaranteed equal rights and access to public accommodations, businesses, transportation.

Big symbolic wins.

But did those civil rights laws mean much to the average poor black worker just struggling to survive?

That's the question the source raises.

For many poor black workers, these rights were abstract.

They didn't have the money to go to the fancy hotels or theaters anyway.

Often it wasn't safe to try, even if they did.

Their daily economic struggle felt much more immediate.

Which leads us back to the waterfront, I assume.

Exactly.

Back to economic action.

In May 1867, there was another major strike by black longshore workers.

The second black strike.

Which triggered this one?

This time, they were targeting corruption within their own community, specifically exploitative black labor contractors.

These guys acted as middlemen, often cheating workers out of their wages.

They called them swindlers.

So they struck against black contractors for better pay.

Yes.

Demanding a raise from $3 to $4 a day, and crucially demanding an end to the corrupt contracting system itself.

It got very intense.

They actually tried to lynch one particularly hated black contractor named Moses Shepard.

Wow.

How did the authorities react this time under military reconstruction?

The military stepped in again.

General Mower, the commander, confronted the strikers, threatening them with a little grape and canister, meaning artillery fire, if they didn't disperse.

He restored order with force.

So even under military rule, black workers' direct action for economic justice was suppressed.

It was.

Which really makes you think, doesn't it?

You have the black elite, the white conservative newspapers, and now even the federal military authorities, all condemning these black workers for taking collective action to get fair pay.

What does that tell us?

It suggests the absolute priority for almost everyone in power was maintaining order and upholding this ideal of a free market, even if that market was clearly being manipulated.

Economic justice for the laborers themselves was secondary.

Although didn't General Mower do something about the contractors later?

He did to his credit.

After suppressing the strike, he recognized the core problem and issued a direct order.

Steamo men, pay your hands yourself.

This forced the shipping companies to pay workers directly, bypassing the corrupt middlemen and fixing the worst of the abuses.

A significant, practical reform.

Okay, so let's try to pull this all together.

Looking back at this period, 1863 to maybe 1868, what's the main takeaway?

Why did this potential alliance between white and black labor just never happen?

It boils down to that ideological gulf, as the source calls it.

For the white workers, their racism was deeply ingrained.

Protecting their jobs, their skills, their status, meant seeing black workers fundamentally as competition, as a threat, not as potential partners.

So even though both groups opposed the old planter aristocracy?

That common enemy wasn't enough.

They wanted to remake Louisiana, yes, but they had completely different agendas and occupied different ideological and political worlds.

White workers drifted back to the Democrats, seeing them as the party to stop black political power.

And black workers, their economic needs often got pushed aside.

Yes,

by the black elite and white Republican leaders, who were more focused on achieving those big political and civil rights victories, like suffrage and the 1868 constitution,

the day -to -day struggle for fair wages, for basic economic security, often took a back seat.

It shows how the fight for survival for a newly freed person was just worlds apart from the fight for, say, the dignity and status of an already skilled white craftsman.

Absolutely different struggles, different priorities.

So if even hating the same enemy, the planters provided, quote, little basis for political or economic collaboration right after the war, it leaves you wondering what could possibly bring these groups together?

What kind of crisis or pressure would it take down the line?

That's the big question hanging over labor relations in New Orleans and really the whole South for decades to come.

What, if anything, could bridge that divide?

A really powerful and, frankly, quite sobering look at how the lines were drawn right at the start of reconstruction in New Orleans.

Thank you for walking us through that.

Glad we could explore it.

And thank you all for tuning into this deep dive.