Congressional Debates: Examining Congressional Debates over Bureau Funding and Authority to Understand Political Divisions over Reconstruction

Author: Martin Munyao Muinde
Email: ephantusmartin@gmail.com
Date: August 13, 2025

Abstract

The congressional debates surrounding the Freedmen’s Bureau’s funding and authority from 1865 to 1872 provide critical insights into the fundamental political divisions that characterized the Reconstruction era in American history. These legislative discussions reveal the profound ideological conflicts between Republican and Democratic parties, as well as internal divisions within the Republican coalition regarding the appropriate scope and duration of federal intervention in the post-Civil War South. Through careful examination of congressional records, committee reports, and floor debates, this analysis demonstrates how disputes over Bureau funding and authority reflected broader disagreements about federal power, racial equality, constitutional interpretation, and the future of American democracy. The political battles over the Freedmen’s Bureau served as a microcosm of larger Reconstruction debates, illuminating the tensions between competing visions of national unity, states’ rights, and civil rights that would shape American politics for generations to come.

Congressional debates over Bureau funding reveal the complex interplay between humanitarian concerns, political calculations, and constitutional principles that influenced Reconstruction policy. Republican supporters argued that federal intervention was necessary to protect the rights of newly freed slaves and ensure the successful reintegration of Southern states into the Union. Democratic opponents and conservative Republicans countered that extensive federal involvement violated constitutional principles of limited government and states’ rights while perpetuating sectional divisions. These debates provide invaluable documentation of how political leaders grappled with unprecedented challenges related to civil rights, federal authority, and the meaning of American citizenship in the aftermath of the nation’s most devastating conflict.

Introduction

The establishment and continued operation of the Freedmen’s Bureau became one of the most contentious political issues of the Reconstruction period, generating fierce congressional debates that reflected fundamental disagreements about the proper role of federal government in protecting civil rights and promoting social change. Created by the Freedmen’s Bureau Act of March 3, 1865, the agency initially received broad bipartisan support as a temporary wartime measure designed to address the immediate humanitarian crisis facing millions of newly freed slaves (Bentley, 1955). However, as the Bureau’s operations expanded and its temporary mandate was extended through subsequent legislation, congressional debates became increasingly polarized along partisan and ideological lines, revealing deep divisions about the nature and scope of Reconstruction policy.

The political battles over Bureau funding and authority were shaped by competing interpretations of the Constitution, divergent views about racial equality, and conflicting assessments of the federal government’s responsibility for ensuring civil rights in the former Confederate states. Republican supporters of the Bureau argued that extraordinary circumstances required extraordinary measures, and that federal intervention was essential to protect the fundamental rights of citizenship for formerly enslaved people (Foner, 1988). Democratic opponents and conservative Republicans countered that the Bureau represented dangerous federal overreach that violated constitutional principles of limited government and threatened to establish a permanent system of federal dependency among African Americans. These debates provided a crucial forum for articulating competing visions of American democracy and the proper relationship between federal and state authority in the post-war period.

The Political Landscape of Reconstruction-Era Congress

The congressional debates over Freedmen’s Bureau funding and authority unfolded within a complex political environment characterized by shifting party coalitions, regional tensions, and evolving ideological positions on civil rights and federal power. The Republican Party, which controlled both houses of Congress for most of the Reconstruction period, was internally divided between moderate and radical factions that disagreed significantly about the pace and scope of social change in the South (Benedict, 1974). Moderate Republicans, led by figures such as Lyman Trumbull of Illinois, generally supported limited federal intervention designed to protect basic civil rights while encouraging rapid reconciliation with the former Confederate states. Radical Republicans, including Thaddeus Stevens of Pennsylvania and Charles Sumner of Massachusetts, advocated for more comprehensive federal programs aimed at fundamentally transforming Southern society and ensuring genuine equality for African Americans.

The Democratic Party, devastated by its association with the Confederacy and reduced to minority status in both houses of Congress, employed various strategic approaches in opposing Republican Reconstruction policies. Democratic leaders such as Senator Thomas Hendricks of Indiana and Representative Fernando Wood of New York consistently argued that federal intervention in the South was unconstitutional, economically wasteful, and socially destructive (Gillette, 1979). They sought to exploit divisions within the Republican coalition by appealing to constitutional concerns and fiscal conservatism while simultaneously attempting to rebuild their party’s strength in both Northern and Southern constituencies. The Democratic opposition to the Freedmen’s Bureau served multiple political purposes, allowing party leaders to position themselves as defenders of constitutional government while appealing to white voters who opposed federal support for African American advancement.

The evolution of congressional party dynamics during the Reconstruction period significantly influenced the trajectory of debates over Bureau funding and authority. The initial bipartisan support for the agency reflected the immediate post-war consensus that some form of federal assistance was necessary to address the humanitarian crisis in the South. However, as political attention shifted from wartime emergency measures to long-term policy questions, partisan divisions became more pronounced and ideological differences more clearly defined (McKitrick, 1960). The 1866 midterm elections, which resulted in overwhelming Republican victories, strengthened the hand of Radical Republicans and led to more aggressive assertions of federal authority. Conversely, the gradual erosion of Republican unity in the early 1870s, combined with growing Northern war weariness and increasing Democratic strength, contributed to the eventual abandonment of Reconstruction policies and the termination of the Freedmen’s Bureau.

Early Congressional Support and the Founding Legislation

The initial congressional debates surrounding the creation of the Freedmen’s Bureau in early 1865 revealed a surprising degree of bipartisan consensus about the need for federal intervention to address the immediate crisis facing newly freed slaves and war refugees in the South. Senator Charles Sumner’s advocacy for comprehensive federal assistance found support not only among Radical Republicans but also among moderate legislators who viewed the Bureau as a necessary temporary measure to facilitate the transition from war to peace (Donald, 1970). The original legislation passed both houses of Congress with relatively little opposition, reflecting the widespread recognition that existing state and local institutions were inadequate to address the unprecedented challenges of emancipation and social reconstruction.

The congressional record from February and March 1865 demonstrates that early supporters of the Bureau emphasized its humanitarian mission and temporary nature rather than its potential for promoting long-term social change. Representative Thomas Eliot of Massachusetts, who managed the House version of the legislation, argued that federal intervention was justified by the exceptional circumstances created by the war and emancipation, emphasizing that the agency would operate only until normal civil authority could be restored in the South (Congressional Globe, 1865). This framing helped secure support from moderate Republicans and even some conservative Democrats who might otherwise have opposed federal involvement in state affairs. The relatively modest funding authorized for the Bureau’s first year of operations, approximately $5 million, reflected congressional caution about the scope and duration of federal commitment to Reconstruction efforts.

However, even during these early debates, some legislators expressed concerns that would later become central to opposition arguments against Bureau expansion. Senator Willard Saulsbury of Delaware warned that the agency could become a permanent federal bureaucracy that would undermine state authority and create dangerous precedents for federal intervention in local affairs (Congressional Globe, 1865). Representative Samuel Cox of Ohio argued that the Bureau’s broad mandate lacked specific constitutional authorization and could lead to arbitrary federal control over areas traditionally governed by state and local authorities. These early dissenting voices foreshadowed the more intense opposition that would emerge as the Bureau’s operations expanded and its temporary mandate was repeatedly extended through subsequent congressional action.

Republican Divisions: Radical versus Moderate Approaches

The most significant congressional debates over Freedmen’s Bureau funding and authority occurred within the Republican Party itself, as radical and moderate factions articulated competing visions of federal responsibility for protecting civil rights and promoting social change in the South. Radical Republicans, led by Thaddeus Stevens in the House and Charles Sumner in the Senate, viewed the Bureau as an essential instrument for achieving fundamental transformation of Southern society and ensuring genuine equality for African Americans (Trefousse, 1969). They argued that the federal government had both the constitutional authority and moral obligation to use its power to protect the rights of citizenship for formerly enslaved people, even if such intervention required unprecedented expansion of federal programs and spending.

Stevens’s passionate advocacy for increased Bureau funding reflected his belief that half-measures would fail to address the systemic inequalities and entrenched resistance that characterized the post-war South. In a famous House speech delivered in December 1865, Stevens declared that the federal government must “revolutionize Southern institutions, habits, and manners” through sustained intervention, arguing that anything less would betray the sacrifices made during the Civil War and abandon African Americans to continued oppression (Congressional Globe, 1865). Radical Republicans consistently supported proposals to expand the Bureau’s authority, increase its funding, and extend its operations indefinitely until genuine civil rights were secured throughout the former Confederacy. They viewed congressional appropriations for the Bureau not as charitable expenditures but as essential investments in American democracy and constitutional government.

Moderate Republicans, while generally supportive of civil rights and federal protection for freedpeople, expressed significant reservations about the scope and duration of Bureau operations proposed by their radical colleagues. Senator Lyman Trumbull, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and a key architect of civil rights legislation, argued that federal intervention should be limited in scope and temporary in duration, designed to establish basic legal protections rather than to engineer comprehensive social change (Krug, 1965). Trumbull and other moderates worried that extensive federal programs could create permanent dependency among African Americans while generating dangerous resentment among Southern whites that would ultimately undermine prospects for successful reconciliation. This faction supported Bureau funding for essential services such as education and legal protection but opposed proposals for massive land redistribution or indefinite federal oversight of Southern labor relations.

The tensions between radical and moderate Republicans became particularly evident during debates over the Bureau’s renewal in 1866 and subsequent funding battles throughout the late 1860s. Moderate Republicans often found themselves caught between their commitment to civil rights and their concerns about constitutional limitations, fiscal responsibility, and political pragmatism (Benedict, 1974). This internal Republican division provided opportunities for Democratic opponents to exploit disagreements within the majority party while positioning themselves as defenders of constitutional government and fiscal restraint.

Democratic Opposition and Constitutional Arguments

Democratic opposition to Freedmen’s Bureau funding and authority centered on sophisticated constitutional arguments that challenged both the legal foundation and practical implementation of federal Reconstruction policies. Leading Democratic legislators such as Senator Thomas Hendricks of Indiana and Representative Andrew Rogers of New Jersey developed comprehensive critiques of Bureau operations that went beyond simple partisan opposition to articulate principled concerns about federal overreach and constitutional interpretation (Gillette, 1979). These arguments resonated with conservative Republicans and helped shape public debate about the proper limits of federal power in the post-war period.

Democratic constitutional objections to the Freedmen’s Bureau focused primarily on the agency’s broad authority to intervene in areas traditionally governed by state and local authorities. Senator Hendricks argued that the Constitution provided no explicit authorization for federal agencies to regulate labor relations, oversee educational systems, or redistribute private property, even in the exceptional circumstances created by the Civil War (Congressional Globe, 1866). He contended that the Bureau’s operations violated fundamental principles of federalism and separation of powers while establishing dangerous precedents for unlimited federal intervention in state affairs. Democratic legislators consistently argued that the proper remedy for Southern problems lay in the restoration of legitimate state governments rather than in the expansion of federal bureaucracy and spending.

The Democratic critique of Bureau funding also emphasized fiscal concerns and the potential for corruption and waste in federal programs operating with minimal oversight in hostile territory. Representative Samuel Cox of Ohio compiled detailed evidence of alleged Bureau mismanagement and fraud, arguing that congressional appropriations were being squandered on ineffective programs that enriched Northern carpetbaggers while failing to provide meaningful assistance to their intended beneficiaries (Cox, 1868). Democrats argued that the massive costs of Bureau operations imposed unfair burdens on taxpayers while diverting resources from more legitimate federal responsibilities such as debt reduction and infrastructure development. This line of argument proved particularly effective in appealing to fiscally conservative Republicans who shared concerns about government spending and administrative efficiency.

Democratic opposition to the Bureau also reflected deeper ideological disagreements about racial equality and the appropriate role of government in promoting social change. While Democratic leaders generally avoided explicit appeals to racial prejudice in their congressional speeches, their arguments about constitutional limitations and fiscal responsibility often contained implicit assumptions about African American capabilities and federal responsibilities (Woodward, 1951). The Democratic emphasis on states’ rights and limited government served multiple political purposes, allowing party leaders to appeal to constitutional principles while simultaneously opposing policies designed to protect and advance African American interests. This strategic approach helped Democrats rebuild their political strength in both Northern and Southern constituencies while positioning themselves as principled defenders of traditional American governance.

Key Legislative Battles and Turning Points

The congressional battles over specific Bureau funding bills and authority expansions provide crucial insights into the evolution of political divisions over Reconstruction policy and the gradual erosion of support for federal intervention in the South. The 1866 debate over the Bureau’s renewal marked a critical turning point in congressional attitudes toward Reconstruction, as President Andrew Johnson’s veto of the renewal bill forced Republicans to choose between compromise with the executive branch and more aggressive assertion of congressional authority (McKitrick, 1960). The successful override of Johnson’s veto demonstrated growing Republican unity behind expanded federal intervention while highlighting the complete breakdown of cooperation between the legislative and executive branches on Reconstruction policy.

The congressional response to Johnson’s veto revealed the complex political dynamics that shaped Reconstruction legislation throughout the late 1860s. Moderate Republicans who had previously expressed reservations about Bureau expansion found themselves compelled to support more aggressive measures in order to maintain party unity and counter what they viewed as presidential obstructionism (Benedict, 1974). The veto override required extensive lobbying and negotiation among Republican factions, with radical leaders making strategic concessions on funding levels and operational scope in exchange for moderate support on core issues of authority and duration. This legislative victory strengthened the hand of congressional Republicans in subsequent battles with the Johnson administration while demonstrating their ability to overcome internal divisions when faced with external challenges.

The 1868 congressional elections and the subsequent presidency of Ulysses S. Grant initially appeared to provide new opportunities for expanding Bureau operations and funding, as Republican control of both legislative and executive branches eliminated the institutional conflicts that had characterized the Johnson years. However, the political dynamics surrounding Bureau funding actually became more complex during the Grant administration, as growing Northern war weariness and increasing fiscal pressures created new challenges for supporters of federal intervention (Gillette, 1979). The congressional debates over Bureau appropriations in 1869 and 1870 revealed declining enthusiasm for Reconstruction policies even among Republican legislators, with many arguing that the agency had accomplished its essential mission and should be gradually phased out in favor of normal constitutional governance.

The final congressional battles over Bureau funding in 1871 and 1872 demonstrated the complete transformation of political attitudes toward Reconstruction that had occurred over the course of the decade. Republican supporters of continued federal intervention found themselves increasingly isolated as former allies abandoned their commitments to comprehensive civil rights enforcement in favor of political reconciliation and fiscal economy (Foner, 1988). The successful termination of Bureau operations reflected not only changing political calculations but also fundamental shifts in public opinion about federal responsibility for protecting African American rights and promoting social change in the South.

Regional and Sectional Influences on Congressional Debates

The geographic origins and constituencies of congressional representatives significantly influenced their positions on Freedmen’s Bureau funding and authority, creating complex patterns of regional alliance and opposition that cut across simple partisan divisions. Northern Republicans from constituencies with strong abolitionist traditions and significant African American populations generally supported expanded Bureau operations, while their colleagues from more conservative districts often expressed reservations about the scope and duration of federal intervention (Benedict, 1974). These intra-regional differences within the Republican Party reflected the diverse political pressures and ideological commitments that shaped congressional responses to Reconstruction policy.

Representatives from border states occupied particularly complex positions in Bureau funding debates, as their constituencies included both supporters and opponents of federal intervention while their states experienced many of the same social and economic challenges that characterized the former Confederacy. Senator John Sherman of Ohio exemplified this regional perspective, supporting Bureau operations as necessary for maintaining civil order while expressing concerns about the long-term implications of extensive federal involvement in state affairs (Sherman, 1895). Border state legislators often served as crucial swing votes in close congressional battles, with their support or opposition frequently determining the outcome of specific funding measures and policy initiatives.

The gradual readmission of Southern states to congressional representation beginning in 1868 introduced new dynamics into Bureau funding debates, as former Confederate legislators joined Democratic colleagues in opposing continued federal intervention while newly elected African American representatives advocated for expanded programs and extended operations. The presence of legislators such as Hiram Revels of Mississippi and Joseph Rainey of South Carolina in congressional debates provided powerful testimony about the continuing need for federal protection of civil rights while highlighting the political progress achieved through Reconstruction policies (Foner, 1993). However, the overall impact of Southern readmission was to strengthen opposition to Bureau funding, as the combination of Democratic and conservative Republican votes increasingly outweighed the influence of radical Republicans and African American legislators.

Western representatives occupied unique positions in Bureau funding debates, as their constituencies generally had limited direct experience with slavery or emancipation while facing their own challenges related to territorial development and Indian policy. Many Western legislators supported Bureau operations as part of broader Republican commitments to civil rights and federal development programs, while others viewed Southern Reconstruction as a distraction from more pressing regional concerns (Richardson, 2001). The voting patterns of Western representatives on Bureau funding issues often reflected broader political calculations about party loyalty and national policy priorities rather than specific regional interests or ideological commitments related to civil rights and Reconstruction.

Economic Arguments and Fiscal Policy Debates

Congressional debates over Freedmen’s Bureau funding were deeply intertwined with broader discussions about federal fiscal policy, taxation, and economic development that characterized the post-Civil War period. Republican supporters of Bureau operations argued that federal investment in Southern reconstruction and African American advancement would generate long-term economic benefits that justified short-term expenditures, while Democratic opponents contended that such spending imposed unfair burdens on taxpayers while undermining economic recovery and growth (Bensel, 1990). These competing economic arguments reflected fundamental disagreements about the proper role of government in promoting social change and economic development.

The fiscal context of Bureau funding debates was shaped by the enormous financial pressures created by Civil War debt and the ongoing costs of military occupation in the South. Congressional appropriations for Bureau operations represented a relatively small portion of total federal spending, typically ranging from $5 million to $15 million annually, but opponents argued that such expenditures were symptomatic of broader problems with federal fiscal management and government overreach (Dewey, 1903). Democratic legislators consistently linked Bureau funding to larger arguments about the need for reduced government spending, lower taxes, and elimination of wartime emergency measures that they claimed had outlived their usefulness and created dangerous precedents for federal intervention in private affairs.

Republican defenders of Bureau funding developed sophisticated economic arguments that emphasized the agency’s contributions to Southern economic recovery and long-term national development. Representative John Lynch of Mississippi argued that Bureau educational programs created human capital that would generate substantial returns through increased productivity and economic growth, while Bureau labor mediation services helped establish stable working relationships that were essential for agricultural recovery (Congressional Globe, 1870). These arguments appealed to moderate Republicans who supported limited government in principle but recognized the need for federal intervention to address the exceptional circumstances created by emancipation and social reconstruction.

The economic arguments surrounding Bureau funding also reflected competing theories about the relationship between government spending and private economic activity. Radical Republicans argued that federal investment in civil rights and social programs created conditions for sustained economic growth by expanding markets, increasing productivity, and promoting social stability (Summers, 1984). Conservative opponents countered that government spending crowded out private investment while creating artificial dependencies that undermined individual initiative and economic efficiency. These theoretical debates about fiscal policy and economic development provided intellectual frameworks for understanding the practical disagreements about Bureau operations and their impact on American society.

Constitutional Interpretation and Federal Authority

The congressional debates over Freedmen’s Bureau authority involved fundamental questions about constitutional interpretation and the scope of federal power that would influence American political development for generations to come. Republican supporters of expanded Bureau operations developed innovative constitutional arguments based on the war powers of Congress, the enforcement provisions of the Thirteenth Amendment, and broad interpretations of the necessary and proper clause that challenged traditional limitations on federal authority (tenBroek, 1965). These constitutional innovations reflected the extraordinary circumstances created by the Civil War and emancipation while establishing precedents that would later influence debates about federal civil rights enforcement and social welfare programs.

The constitutional foundation for Bureau operations rested primarily on congressional war powers and the federal government’s responsibility for managing the transition from war to peace in the former Confederate states. Senator Charles Sumner argued that the exceptional circumstances created by rebellion and emancipation required exceptional constitutional measures, contending that normal peacetime limitations on federal authority could not apply until legitimate constitutional government was restored throughout the South (Sumner, 1870). This argument provided legal justification for extensive federal intervention while acknowledging that such measures were temporary expedients rather than permanent expansions of federal authority.

Democratic constitutional objections to Bureau authority focused on the agency’s broad discretionary powers and the absence of specific constitutional authorization for federal involvement in areas such as education, labor relations, and land redistribution. Senator Thomas Hendricks argued that the Constitution provided no basis for federal agencies to exercise quasi-judicial authority over private disputes or to regulate economic relationships between employers and workers (Congressional Globe, 1866). These arguments reflected traditional Democratic commitments to limited government and states’ rights while appealing to constitutional principles that commanded broad respect across party lines.

The long-term significance of constitutional debates over Bureau authority extended far beyond the specific circumstances of Reconstruction to influence fundamental questions about federal power and civil rights enforcement that continue to shape American politics today. The precedents established through Bureau operations provided legal and political foundations for later federal interventions in civil rights, social welfare, and economic regulation while demonstrating both the potential and limitations of federal authority in promoting social change (Kaczorowski, 1985). The constitutional innovations developed during Reconstruction debates created intellectual frameworks that would later influence Progressive Era reforms, New Deal programs, and civil rights legislation of the 1960s.

The Decline of Congressional Support and Bureau Termination

The gradual erosion of congressional support for Freedmen’s Bureau funding and authority during the early 1870s reflected broader changes in American political culture and priorities that marked the effective end of Reconstruction as a national commitment to civil rights and social transformation. The 1870 congressional elections demonstrated declining Northern enthusiasm for continued federal intervention in the South, as Republican candidates increasingly emphasized economic issues and sectional reconciliation rather than civil rights and Reconstruction policies (Gillette, 1979). This political shift was reflected in congressional debates over Bureau operations, where former supporters of federal intervention began arguing for gradual phase-out of agency programs and transfer of responsibilities to state and local authorities.

The changing dynamics of congressional debate over Bureau funding revealed the complex interplay between partisan politics, regional interests, and ideological commitments that shaped the trajectory of Reconstruction policy. Republican legislators who had previously supported expanded Bureau operations began expressing concerns about the political costs of continued federal intervention, particularly in light of growing Northern war weariness and increasing Democratic strength in competitive congressional districts (Foner, 1988). The successful Democratic arguments about constitutional limitations and fiscal responsibility gradually gained acceptance among moderate Republicans who sought to balance their commitments to civil rights with concerns about political viability and governmental efficiency.

The final congressional decisions to terminate Bureau operations in 1872 represented a fundamental shift in federal policy toward the South and civil rights that would influence American racial relations for the next century. The debates over agency termination revealed the extent to which political considerations had come to outweigh humanitarian concerns and constitutional principles in shaping congressional attitudes toward Reconstruction (Richardson, 2001). Republican leaders who voted to end Bureau operations argued that the agency had accomplished its essential mission of establishing basic legal protections for African Americans, while acknowledging privately that continued federal intervention had become politically unsustainable given changing public opinion and partisan pressures.

Conclusion

The congressional debates over Freedmen’s Bureau funding and authority provide invaluable insights into the fundamental political divisions that characterized the Reconstruction era and continue to influence American debates about federal power, civil rights, and social policy. These legislative discussions revealed the complex interplay between constitutional principles, partisan calculations, regional interests, and ideological commitments that shaped one of the most significant periods in American political development. The evolution of congressional attitudes toward Bureau operations demonstrates how political support for federal intervention in civil rights can erode over time when faced with changing public opinion, fiscal pressures, and partisan opposition.

The political battles over Bureau funding illuminate both the potential and limitations of federal authority in promoting social change and protecting civil rights in a federal system characterized by competing centers of power and diverse regional interests. Republican supporters of the Bureau demonstrated remarkable innovation in developing constitutional arguments and political strategies for federal intervention, while Democratic opponents articulated sophisticated critiques that appealed to enduring American commitments to limited government and constitutional restraint. The ultimate failure to maintain sustained federal support for Bureau operations foreshadowed many of the challenges that would confront later civil rights initiatives and social welfare programs throughout American history.

The legacy of congressional debates over Freedmen’s Bureau authority extends far beyond the specific circumstances of Reconstruction to influence contemporary discussions about federal responsibility for promoting equality and social justice. The constitutional precedents, political strategies, and policy innovations developed during these debates created intellectual frameworks that continue to shape American political discourse while demonstrating the enduring tension between competing visions of federal power and individual rights. Understanding these historical debates provides essential context for contemporary efforts to address persistent inequalities and promote effective governance in an increasingly complex and diverse society.

References

Benedict, M. L. (1974). A compromise of principle: Congressional Republicans and Reconstruction, 1863-1869. W. W. Norton & Company.

Bensel, R. F. (1990). Yankee Leviathan: The origins of central state authority in America, 1859-1877. Cambridge University Press.

Bentley, G. R. (1955). A history of the Freedmen’s Bureau. University of Pennsylvania Press.

Congressional Globe. (1865). 39th Congress, 1st Session. Government Printing Office.

Congressional Globe. (1866). 39th Congress, 1st Session. Government Printing Office.

Congressional Globe. (1870). 41st Congress, 2nd Session. Government Printing Office.

Cox, S. S. (1868). Three decades of federal legislation. Providence Press.

Dewey, D. R. (1903). Financial history of the United States. Longmans, Green & Company.

Donald, D. H. (1970). Charles Sumner and the rights of man. Alfred A. Knopf.

Foner, E. (1988). Reconstruction: America’s unfinished revolution, 1863-1877. Harper & Row.

Foner, E. (1993). Freedom’s lawmakers: A directory of black officeholders during Reconstruction. Oxford University Press.

Gillette, W. (1979). Retreat from Reconstruction, 1869-1879. Louisiana State University Press.

Kaczorowski, R. J. (1985). The politics of judicial interpretation: The federal courts, department of justice and civil rights, 1866-1876. Oceana Publications.

Krug, M. M. (1965). Lyman Trumbull: Conservative radical. A. S. Barnes & Company.

McKitrick, E. L. (1960). Andrew Johnson and Reconstruction. University of Chicago Press.

Richardson, H. C. (2001). The death of Reconstruction: Race, labor, and politics in the post-Civil War North, 1865-1901. Harvard University Press.

Sherman, J. (1895). Recollections of forty years in the House, Senate and Cabinet. Werner Company.

Summers, M. W. (1984). Railroads, Reconstruction, and the gospel of prosperity: Aid under the Radical Republicans, 1865-1877. Princeton University Press.

Sumner, C. (1870). The works of Charles Sumner, Volume 13. Lee and Shepard.

tenBroek, J. (1965). Equal under law. Collier Books.

Trefousse, H. L. (1969). The radical Republicans: Lincoln’s vanguard for racial justice. Alfred A. Knopf.

Woodward, C. V. (1951). Origins of the new South, 1877-1913. Louisiana State University Press.