Grant wasn't vindictive but he was willing to send the US army to crush the Klan. He didn't hate Southernors (and kind of did hate black people) but was willing to go to war with the Klan to protect civil rights for a group he disliked generally to my knowledge.
Ideal American Reconstruction
- Thread starter Father Maryland
- Start date
Grant wasn't vindictive but he was willing to send the US army to crush the Klan. He didn't hate Southernors (and kind of did hate black people) but was willing to go to war with the Klan to protect civil rights for a group he disliked generally to my knowledge.
My point was it was not important to the Federal Government at the time. It should have been, but they did not see it that way at the time.
I am trying to look at it from the point of view of people in government at the time, not my own views. As you say they should have tried.
Why get rid of slavery after the civil war? Most of the slaves were emancipated by executive order during the war so only a small number of legal slaves were left in union states at that point. Not much point in allowing slavery to be legal when there were almost no slaves left in America and no way of importing any more slaves
19th amendment was seen as important to the government at the time and was the right thing to do. Same for the 1964 Civil rights act, that and the jim crow laws had become an embarrassment.
As for states seceding from the Union, the federal government does not care then or now what the reasons are or were. It is not something they are going to allow no matter what the reason is. The pledge of allegiance is to make sure everyone understands no states will ever be allowed to leave the union no matter what the reason is.
Last edited:
I meant the book to by dystopic. Buy it at the link and take a look.
Question for the moderators: Is the text quoted by Father Maryland a violation of the rules? I had second thoughts and deleted it, and would like to know if I can restore it. If not, I will let the deletion stand.
Being vindictive and taking land won’t do anything but establish lasting exploitable resentment in the American south. Bad as it was historically it would be even worse if you take land, distribute it to slaves, arm them and have them enforce justice and anti racism in the south. Giving the land would also be ruinous. You are forgetting that these people were slaves. They spent their lives trained to do certain menial tasks. What education they had about farming and planting was what is overheard in the passing. No slave owner educated slaves on finer points of homesteading.
My reconstruction would be to get them out of there. Those who want to go to Liberia - help them do that. Those who want a homestead set them up in Great Plains after a period of education in homesteading, probably as helping hands or something equivalent.
Those who want to move to the cities - help them do so, move them north, give education to the kids and see about ensuring apprenticeships for men and possibly women.
Trying to fix racism in the south won’t work. North was racist as well but easier to work with.
My reconstruction would be to get them out of there. Those who want to go to Liberia - help them do that. Those who want a homestead set them up in Great Plains after a period of education in homesteading, probably as helping hands or something equivalent.
Those who want to move to the cities - help them do so, move them north, give education to the kids and see about ensuring apprenticeships for men and possibly women.
Trying to fix racism in the south won’t work. North was racist as well but easier to work with.
The resentment is why you extend the land distribution to include Southern whites. Even Southern white Confederate Enlisted/drafted veterans. A who went to war a landless laborer or with a small share cropping plot will now return from a losing army now owning a sustainable homestead (either outright or something like the Homestead act rules but with a Reconstruction bent.)
Logistically their is no way near the capacity to send even a large portion of the freedmen populace to Liberia. Nor anywhere near the economic ability to sustain them their.
And it seems like Freedmen managed relatively well during the famous "40 acres and a mule" period where Sherman ordered land (temporarily) be distributed to freedmen. They haven't generally been doing exactly the same task all their lives. They've been used in a variety of largely agricultural roles. More then a few would have been craftsmen on the plantation (Black smiths, coopers, an so on). And anything they don't know the Freedmen Bureau can aim to educate while theoretically having some sort of oversight capability over the Freedmens plots for a bit.
People wouldn’t send their kids to school with black kids until 50 years ago. They would probably be convulsing and throwing up if they knew their descendant married a black person or dated one. Up until this day there’s racism. You can’t buy that away with some land grand. They won’t be happy neighbors. The freedmen will be hated and harassed.
I think the desire of freed slaves should play greater part than economic feasibility for something. If some want to go to Africa they should have a right to do so. If none want same. If all want it then again their choice and they’re owed at least that much. Chartering some ships isn’t ruinous.
Some did relatively well. Some did not. A lot ended up losing said land, selling it or going back to work for former masters for paltry wages. I honestly don’t think former slaves and former masters should be kept together just to prove a point. I firmly believe greater success could be achieved if they were moved, educated or afforded freedom on where to create their new lives.
marktaha
Banned
Has anyone written anything about the end of slavery in the North? Have wondered when the last slave auction was.
And guess what, the desire of the freed slaves was to stay right where they were, get some land, and farm it. They didn't want to go to Liberia, and they mostly didn't want to homestead in the West, just the same way that whites didn't want to go back to Europe or, by and large, homestead (most whites stayed home in the East rather than moving to the West, after all). You see the same patterns in pretty much all human societies; people generally don't want to migrate unless pull and push factors become very significant. So unless you're proposing that the U.S. round up former slaves and make them go to Africa or out West, which is obviously infeasible and morally indefensible, any solution is going to have to involve building up the economic and political strength of former slaves right where they were.
As people before me have said, you need to eliminate the material basis for "White Supremacy"-thought. And that means breaking the power of the planter class. You can use any reason you want: They were horrible racists. They were traitors. They hated even their "fellow whites" when they were poor or nothern. Land distribution among poor whites & freedmen would mean that they would have much more in common with each other than with the rich planters. They both would have a material interest to avoid them getting back into power. Of course in the beginning you would have terrorism, but you had that IOTL as well.
You need to do what the US did after World War 2: Rebuild & reeducate.
You need to do what the US did after World War 2: Rebuild & reeducate.
Keep in mind a few things:
- The more radical you get, the better chance the Democrats win in federal governments earlier and a quicker end to reconstruction.
- Putting people like Lee and Davis on trial and executing them would lead to martyrdom and radicalization.
- Destroying the planter class and economy further will just hurt the southern economy even more than otl, which makes the lives of African Americans and poor white men even worse. The Freedmen's Bureau can only do so much.
To a certain extent, you need to keep certain aspects of the status quo. Destroying everything and rebuilding from scratch won't work.
Personally, the best bet is to militarize African American communities in the South so they have the ability to protect themselves and enforce reconstruction on their own, or create African American majority states out west on the Great Plains/Rockies.
- The more radical you get, the better chance the Democrats win in federal governments earlier and a quicker end to reconstruction.
- Putting people like Lee and Davis on trial and executing them would lead to martyrdom and radicalization.
- Destroying the planter class and economy further will just hurt the southern economy even more than otl, which makes the lives of African Americans and poor white men even worse. The Freedmen's Bureau can only do so much.
To a certain extent, you need to keep certain aspects of the status quo. Destroying everything and rebuilding from scratch won't work.
Personally, the best bet is to militarize African American communities in the South so they have the ability to protect themselves and enforce reconstruction on their own, or create African American majority states out west on the Great Plains/Rockies.
mial42
Gone Fishin'
Quite honestly, OTL is pretty close to as good as you're likely to get, which is strange to say considering the shitshow OTL was, but I think it's true. In many cases, civil wars cripple countries for decades with insurgencies (see: Nigeria and Biafra, or the DRC) and lead to more and more animosity building up over time until the country either splits apart (see: UK and Ireland or North and South Sudan) or goes authoritarian and viciously cracks down on all dissent (See: Chinese and Russian Civil Wars). By comparison, the US got off relatively "lightly," in that after the war Southern separatism disappeared, black people got constitutional protections that were enforced once the political will among a sufficient number of white people existed (and no matter how strong you make these protections, there's no practical way to actually enforce them without major white buy-in, so strengthening them will not in and of itself solve anything), and the paramilitary violence mostly subsided after Reconstruction (barring lynchings of course. See shitshow comment above). There are probably some significant improvements you can make: you might be able to weaken or even avert de jure segregation with the right supreme court ruling (eg Plessy vs Ferguson) but de facto is going to exist without an anachronistically powerful civil rights movement (see: the North in general). You could also plausibly crack down on lynchings, which are clearly illegal and seriously offended the moral sense of a large number of northern whites (although not enough to do much about it for way too long OTL). But I think overwhelmingly and disproportionately white-dominated politics with a de facto black racial underclass is inevitable with any plausible Reconstruction. The US can't militarily occupy the South forever, and if it did you'd end up with the sort of never ending civil war mentioned above.
Much of the discussion around destroying the "planter class" seems to combine Zinn-esque analysis with Maoist policy proposals. The Zinn-esque analysis is the idea that American history is the history of a tiny white economic elite using racism to divide the multiracial working class... which ignores the fact that many "poor whites" enthusiastically joined the Confederacy and fought willingly to preserve slavery, then overwhelmingly supported "Redemption" during and after Reconstruction. Poor white-poor black alliances did happen OTL with the Populists, especially in North Carolina, but didn't last long and generally disintegrated over racism. Blaming the Civil War on exclusively on "the planter class" as a whole and using that to expropriate most or all of them is neither accurate nor just, and will engender massive resistance. You could get away with expropriating a few ringleaders among "the planter class," but most planters are no more guilty of the civil war then most "poor whites." OTL, "planter" dominance disappeared within a few decades anyways, and the result was not racial harmony, since planters were not primarily responsible for racism.
The Maoist policy proposals encompass the uncompensated expropriation of the planters as a class and distributing their wealth to poor whites and their ex-slaves with the intent of destroying them as a class (as opposed to punishing the ringleaders specifically without regard for class). There's a few obvious issues with this:
1) The US was not a Communist state where the very idea of private property and employing people was suspect. Arbitrarily expropriations based on class definitions are not in the cards in any plausible scenario.
2) Most planters were no more responsible then most "poor whites" for the war. Obviously, most of the ring leaders were from the upper class in the South, as is the case for most uprisings, but collective class guilt is not a concept that works well with the US, and plenty of poor whites participated freely and enthusiastically in the war. Expropriating planters to give their lands to poor whites has no real moral justification if you don't accept Communist definitions of class and exploitation.
3) The planters absolutely "have it coming" in the sense that they profited off of slavery for centuries, and you could thus make a perfectly solid moral case for taking their lands and redistributing it to their ex-slaves. But there's two issues with this: first, if you redistribute their lands to their slaves but not to poor whites, that will cause massive resentment, and second, slavery was perfectly legal and not viewed as immoral in and of itself in Southern society prior to the war. Obviously, there were some exceptional people who took a stand against it, and this is not to justify slaver's beliefs in any way, but most people in any society will act in the "mainstream" way, by definition. Attacking planters for acting the way their laws and society told them to act (and even the north was willing to accept, if not love, prior to the war) will engender massive hatred. Expropriating their slaves without compensation (Haiti is the only other country to do this) and shattering their hold over the Federal government is punishment enough.
4) In practice, even if we ignore all the moral and legal issues with expropriating the planter class (and exiling or killing them as some of the more extreme proposals suggest) as a class rather than as individuals, it won't solve anything the medium term. The same thing that happened in Maoist China even after several rounds of land reform will happen in the US: more successful small farmers will start buying up the lands of their less successful neighbors and start turning into large farmers employing people, and pretty soon you'll be back to where you began. The only difference will be that some of these more successful farmers will be black, but (a) most of them will be white, since white people on average will have more education, more experience with finances, better connections, more pre-existing wealth, and better access to the much wealthier white market, and (b) the presence of a minority of successfully black farmers will piss off whites immensely, and the odds of them being driven out/killed/expropriated and their lands and money taken by their white neighbors will rise massively the more visible they are, much like happened OTL when black people got too successful. The Maoist solution to this problem, after failing to solve it with multiple successive rounds of land reform, was collectivization, which had... unintended consequences.
5) Even if we handwave all the legal, moral, and practical issues with doing this, it won't solve the "economic basis of racism" because racism is not a purely economic phenomenon nor solely the fault of the planter elite, despite what Howard Zinn might tell you. As proof, see OTL, where the planter class hasn't been relevant for over a century and yet racism is still here. If anything, the presence of a small black economic elite will engender resentment among both poor whites and their wealthy white competitors.
In short, trying to destroy the "planter class" has no moral or legal basis within the US tradition, will not solve racism or even ameliorate it, will not stop the rise of a new planter class, and will almost certainly engender the sort of long-term resistance present after many civil wars that the US managed to largely avoid OTL. It's a bad idea. Focus on doing OTL Reconstruction better rather than trying to bring a Maoist revolution to the US South.
Much of the discussion around destroying the "planter class" seems to combine Zinn-esque analysis with Maoist policy proposals. The Zinn-esque analysis is the idea that American history is the history of a tiny white economic elite using racism to divide the multiracial working class... which ignores the fact that many "poor whites" enthusiastically joined the Confederacy and fought willingly to preserve slavery, then overwhelmingly supported "Redemption" during and after Reconstruction. Poor white-poor black alliances did happen OTL with the Populists, especially in North Carolina, but didn't last long and generally disintegrated over racism. Blaming the Civil War on exclusively on "the planter class" as a whole and using that to expropriate most or all of them is neither accurate nor just, and will engender massive resistance. You could get away with expropriating a few ringleaders among "the planter class," but most planters are no more guilty of the civil war then most "poor whites." OTL, "planter" dominance disappeared within a few decades anyways, and the result was not racial harmony, since planters were not primarily responsible for racism.
The Maoist policy proposals encompass the uncompensated expropriation of the planters as a class and distributing their wealth to poor whites and their ex-slaves with the intent of destroying them as a class (as opposed to punishing the ringleaders specifically without regard for class). There's a few obvious issues with this:
1) The US was not a Communist state where the very idea of private property and employing people was suspect. Arbitrarily expropriations based on class definitions are not in the cards in any plausible scenario.
2) Most planters were no more responsible then most "poor whites" for the war. Obviously, most of the ring leaders were from the upper class in the South, as is the case for most uprisings, but collective class guilt is not a concept that works well with the US, and plenty of poor whites participated freely and enthusiastically in the war. Expropriating planters to give their lands to poor whites has no real moral justification if you don't accept Communist definitions of class and exploitation.
3) The planters absolutely "have it coming" in the sense that they profited off of slavery for centuries, and you could thus make a perfectly solid moral case for taking their lands and redistributing it to their ex-slaves. But there's two issues with this: first, if you redistribute their lands to their slaves but not to poor whites, that will cause massive resentment, and second, slavery was perfectly legal and not viewed as immoral in and of itself in Southern society prior to the war. Obviously, there were some exceptional people who took a stand against it, and this is not to justify slaver's beliefs in any way, but most people in any society will act in the "mainstream" way, by definition. Attacking planters for acting the way their laws and society told them to act (and even the north was willing to accept, if not love, prior to the war) will engender massive hatred. Expropriating their slaves without compensation (Haiti is the only other country to do this) and shattering their hold over the Federal government is punishment enough.
4) In practice, even if we ignore all the moral and legal issues with expropriating the planter class (and exiling or killing them as some of the more extreme proposals suggest) as a class rather than as individuals, it won't solve anything the medium term. The same thing that happened in Maoist China even after several rounds of land reform will happen in the US: more successful small farmers will start buying up the lands of their less successful neighbors and start turning into large farmers employing people, and pretty soon you'll be back to where you began. The only difference will be that some of these more successful farmers will be black, but (a) most of them will be white, since white people on average will have more education, more experience with finances, better connections, more pre-existing wealth, and better access to the much wealthier white market, and (b) the presence of a minority of successfully black farmers will piss off whites immensely, and the odds of them being driven out/killed/expropriated and their lands and money taken by their white neighbors will rise massively the more visible they are, much like happened OTL when black people got too successful. The Maoist solution to this problem, after failing to solve it with multiple successive rounds of land reform, was collectivization, which had... unintended consequences.
5) Even if we handwave all the legal, moral, and practical issues with doing this, it won't solve the "economic basis of racism" because racism is not a purely economic phenomenon nor solely the fault of the planter elite, despite what Howard Zinn might tell you. As proof, see OTL, where the planter class hasn't been relevant for over a century and yet racism is still here. If anything, the presence of a small black economic elite will engender resentment among both poor whites and their wealthy white competitors.
In short, trying to destroy the "planter class" has no moral or legal basis within the US tradition, will not solve racism or even ameliorate it, will not stop the rise of a new planter class, and will almost certainly engender the sort of long-term resistance present after many civil wars that the US managed to largely avoid OTL. It's a bad idea. Focus on doing OTL Reconstruction better rather than trying to bring a Maoist revolution to the US South.
How does that work when the people you wish to turn them against are the *same* people with whom they have been fighting side by side for the last four years and in many cases are their own cousins or other relatives.
Since the Republicans were the party of high tariffs, which drove up prices in the South, the GOP itself would be the most natural enemy for Southerners to unite against. But for obvious reasons the freedmen wouldn't sign up to that.
Personally I consider this the best way to go. Too extreme and we risk things going Rvbomally's Ad Astra Per Aspera.
Although, looking back on it, I should've taken out the disenfranchisement.
I have to say this really gets to the point. But, I would prefer reinforcing states that already had small African American majority like Louisiana or North Carolina, especially Louisiana with the key port New Orleans. By encouraging whites in these states to take part in westward expansion in the Southwest, black majorities in these states could be increased.
Also ripping the wealth from the upper Southern Class brings justification to the war cause. Before the war one of the ideas was the Northern removal of Southern wealth. Granted it was slaves but tons of wealth was tied up in slaves and land. Ripping this wealth out could cause an uproar in the South not only from the planter class but other Southern as well. Think Forrest and his cavalry fighting a Guerilla War all over places in the South.
I think it is also a violation of due process and not Constitutional to boot. Further, if you say that the Southerns are not citizens and covered by the Constitution you are acknowledging the CSA as a legal country. Therefore it puts the South as have been invaded and now occupied by a foreign power.
I have a good write-up on this but I can't find it and trying to do it from memory.
The planter class had to be destroyed, but that wasn't nearly enough. Regardless of wealth or status, a significant amount of Southern life (be it social, religious, cultural, economic, political, etc) was propped up by slavery. Anything in the South that was remotely supported by slavery had to be erased from existence entirely, from farms and buildings to even ideas and concepts.
marktaha
Banned
No one has the right to outlaw ideas. I know Marx supported the Union but that does not justify Marxist policies . Disenfranchisement is anti democratic.
As you may have guessed I enjoyed "Gone with the Wind."