I'm aware, but given that a predominantly Republican Supreme Court declared in that era that the 14th amendment somehow didn't give the government any power to protect Black rights, maybe it would be necessary to explicitly grant Congress the power to draw the districts. Maybe even, as in other countries, declare that Representatives serve the nation and not their own districts, but that would be taking it too far, maybe.They have this power under the current constitution, they've just never exercised the ability to draw them themselves. They've set down guidelines before, both in the Voting Rights Act and the 1911 Apportionment Act.
Now, I'm going to give a very late reply to some interesting posts made before the update...
It's sad, but prejudice is a learned behavior. A lot of the most fiery racists and Lost Causers were people who hadn't been born when the Civil War took place or were too young to remember it. A lot of the terrorists who attacked Black people in the 1876 elections were "young bloods", from teenagers to young adults who were just toddlers during the war.Even IOTL, the Lost Cause was IIRC as much the product of a younger generation who had not fought in the Civil War as it was the product of Confederate veterans.
Many people may not realize that Lee's Army was quite literally melting away in the road to Appomattox. He only surrendered because the alternative was destruction at Grant's hands - or taking to the mountains as bandits.He did. When he surrendered he had 8'000 armed men out of about 30,000 still with him verus about 120,000 US.
We've reached a point where some officers and officials simply won't be given the option to surrender, because the US will demand they stand trial for war crimes. Others might be given the chance to surrender, but the cartels certainly won't include complete immunity for all officers - but most likely for the common soldiers only. Those with a shred of honor will probably choice to surrender themselves in exchange of protection for their men.Well, I mean, best case scenario the US puts more confederate officers and officials on trial for treason. Very public and very scrupulously fair, but their guilt is a given.
The Union is aware of this. Though many Northerners are still wary of keeping up with what's basically become a class war by now, in rhetoric and action they advocate for the destruction of the planter class as something that will benefit the poor Whites. That's why they offer pardons, land and Bureau aid to those who desert the Confederacy. The only ones likely to keep fighting are the die-hards that it would be better to get rid of anyway.One of the reasons we didn't see a true insurgency after the OTL Civil War was partially because of the sheer swathe of destruction inflicted by Sherman in his march to the sea after the bisection of the Confederacy at Vicksburg, while the economic collapse of the CSA behind the lines meant that there was no real ability to fight on and many soldiers just wanted to go home. The second most important was the relatively lenient terms of Reconstruction, if their homes and legal rights aren't threatened, many won't have a reason to take up arms.
If the Union arrested or exiled the plantation owners and Southern politicians (usually synonymous) and redistributed their land and cancelled any debts owed to them by other Southern whites, it would hardly be skin off the noses of your average yeoman farmer.
That's the other factor, by the end the destruction would be so complete that the guerrillas simply wouldn't have any people to give them the necessary food and supplies. Confederate civilians already hide their food from their own soldiers, it's unlikely they will give up what little they have to an insurgency that's doomed to failure after they've seen their great armies ground to dust and destroyed. And if the guerrillas simply rob the civilians... well, that's not good for their long term prospects, certainly.They’d be trying to fight in areas totally devastated of bereft or war-making material and a population that has seen too much war and just want some peace and quiet (assuming they haven’t left). More than that, it’s not some foreign invader that’s occupying the land, but fellow Americans.
The war has also gotten brutal enough that, if an insurgent cell does make a big enough stink to rouse military action then you’d see boys in blue corralling the insurgents into a swamp or forest before setting the whole thing on fire. Or even like In At The Death by Harry Turtledove where the occupying troops make any town supporting an insurgency pay for it by punishing the whole town until someone comes forward. Perhaps that’s a bit extreme but this is an era where Sherman’s Drive to the Sea is seen as justified and necessary.
By the way, the Union is already punishing whole towns for guerrilla activities. In the Kansas-Missouri border and along the Mississippi, Union commanders often expel civilians, sack and confiscate plantations, and hold people hostage to try and control guerrilla activity. Though it's not generalized, often captured guerrillas are executed in revenge for raids and massacres - unless the guilty turn themselves in first. And, of course, cities that refuse to surrender are often completely destroyed. Conversely, the Confederates too victimize whole communities, even resorting to torturing women and children to draw their Unionist husbands out from the swamps and woods.
The two main factors that I hope will limit the vindictiveness of Reconstruction and the Union occupation is: 1. The Yankees see this as merely reclaiming their land and restoring the Union. They don't see themselves as beating a foe, like the Soviets did when they faced Germany. So they won't want to exterminate all Southerners, only the rebels, giving a chance to all the rest to surrender. Naturally, some abuses will still happen. 2. Radicalism is characterized by utopian idealism, not vindictive revenge. I can't find many Radicals openly calling for complete devastation for the sake of devastation. In fact, most of the bloody appeals came from people who were not really Radicals, such as Andrew Johnson.The difficult aspect of all this is the risks of political factionalism and popular rage in the North, or undisciplined vengeance on the part of Union troops and officers occupying the South, sabotaging a perfect plan for Reconstruction: that Lincoln, or whoever succeeds him, could have perfect or even effective control over the whole project. There were Radical Republicans even in OTL urging very Cromwellian treatment for the South, and not just for the slaveocrats. If it gets out of hand and starts hitting the white yeoman class, the best intentions in the world . . . might not count for much.
Anyhow, I'm sure Red has all this worked out, and I'm keen to see where he takes it.
One of my favorite movies! However, note that we've already reached the untempered version of Reconstruction as described by Lincoln - we have "land appropriation" in the form of extensive land redistribution, we have "revolutionary tribunals" in the form of military and Bureau courts that regularly trial traitors both North and South, we have "punitive measures" in the form of bills to confiscate property and punish rebellion.This little side discussion has me thinking again of that terrific scene in Spielberg's Lincoln (2012) between Lincoln and Thaddeus Stevens. "That's the untempered version of Reconstruction."
I mean, again, we've reached that point. The Union has already established what are basically concentration camps in areas affected by guerrilla warfare, as the secesh civilians found to have been helping civilians are often expelled and driven to camps where they won't be able to aid the outlaws and are basically held hostage to prevent massacres. It's not as bad as the British camps, since most of the time the Union is actually just heavily occupying a town to prevent it from helping civilians, but in extreme cases they may be torched and the civilians are expelled without any aid - which has, you can imagine, resulted in atrocious casualties. Some civilians left voluntarily, which has only worsened the refugee crisis and set the conditions for the imminent famine. As far as scorched earth tactics, Grant and Sherman have already thoroughly devastated the Mississippi Valley and large areas of Louisiana to deal with guerrillas. The difference with the British is, of course, that after imparting so much destruction the Yankee soldiers always set down and offer land, food, supplies and pardons to those who want them. So a man may see his land sacked and food eaten... but the next week the Yankees would be giving him better land and better tools, and feeding and protecting him until the first crop is ready. At the very least this should show him that keeping up the fight won't achieve anything - even if resentment continues. At the end of the day, we'll have to do with passive loyalty bred from self-interest when genuine loyalty bred from love of the Union is not possible.If it really gets nasty like the Boer Wars, there would need to be equally dramatic measures on the side of the Union to win it. Remembering it took the Brits using concentration camps (that killed not a insignificant part of the Boer population and were intentionally deprived of food and medicine to a extent), scorched earth tactics as well as overwhelming military force before they were able to defeat the Boer guerrillas, and even then, the war forever scarred the Boer population enough they would distrust the British all the way towards the end of apartheid.
The question is: would the American public, government and army really be ok with doing something like this against fellow Americans? Even if they're justifiable irate against them for many reasons, it's one thing to do it against foreigners you want to defer and conquer and another to do it to your countrymen.
Indeed, but my goal is a better US and turning the South into Ireland won't do the trick.Of course, that would be a fascinating timeline to read, too...
There will be outlaws for many years after the war. As for the battle, I am envisioning a magnificent last stand. Keep reading, we're approaching the end!Can't wait to see the week days
Would the rebels try to hold the capital like the Germans in 1945 or abandon it to attempt a guerrilla resistance. I mean with how paranoid the planter class has gotten, I can see them attempting to hold on until the bitter end.
Is Jesse james going to be around afterwards
I wonder if there going be many outlaws after the war
I hope there one last epic battle to end it
The Native Americans sadly will probably not be part of the body politic anytime soon. But aside from that, the coalitions are really spot on. Still, at some point there probably won't be another realignment because it would be hard for a party to champion both the cause of the freedmen and of the robber barons.Is it pretty much accepted that the dominant Republican coalition after the war are going to be formed by the "good old boys" from the civil war (Northern WASPs, Southern Scalawags, Germans in places like Texas and Missouri, Scandanavians, and Old-Stock Freedmen), and the rest of the non-republicans are a scattered group of everyone else (Natives, anti-reconstruction Southerners, former Chestnuts, the Irish, Latin Americans, and immigrants from Eastern Europe, Southern Europe, the Middle East, East Asia, southeast asia, and later the Caribbean )?
Already picturing the scene of Lincoln finally returning the capital to Washington as the final sign that the war is truly over (though its problems continue).Can the war end with a Roman Triumph down Pennsylvania Avenue?
Unfortunately, not many Radicals seemed interested in the plight of Native Americans. Most subscribed to the idea that it was the destiny of the US to extend from sea to shinning sea, and the better ones envisioned a "fair deal" for Native Americans that was benign paternalism and eventual assimilation. They would be most likely to argue that Black people have as much as White people the right to rob Natives of their lands.That would be totally too Radical! No way they get land back east of the Mississippi. Maybe they get a better deal and the Indian Territory doesn't get turned into Oklahoma. I missed how the Dakota War played out TTL. With the situation in the east, the west might not get the same attention it did OTL? Maybe more folks get hanged in Mankato?
I think I did use that quote somewhere, in fact, but I have indeed adopted your idea that Lincoln, based on the more radical war, has made attempts to prevent "distractions" in the form of wars with Native American tribes. So yeah, I think it's canon that the food got there in time and conflict was mostly avoided.It's figured that it didn't happen. And while Red didn't use it explicitly, it seems he sort of accepted my quote that I provided which is the equivalent of his comment about Kentucy (which may be apocryphal anyway) OTL - "I would hope that God would be for us, but I must ensure that we have nobody else against us." (I think I changed the quote a little even now, so it probably is apocryphal - just like the Kentucky comment about how he must have it.)
In other words,more attempts were made to get food to them faster and thust the war was averted (and it was a matters of days OTL anyway, so it's easy to see.)
That, incidentally, means that the largest mass execution in American history is instead the execution of 82 soldiers of Forrest's command for the Fort Pillow massacre and other war crimes.