Ideal American Reconstruction

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.

Why?
The point of Reconstruction was to rebuild the *Union*. Rebuilding the *South* was a means to that end, by seeking to prevent disloyal elements holding power there. Once it becmae clear that the ex-Rebs had accepted defeat and weren't going to rebel again, interference in the South's internal affairs becasme a pontless exercise, hence its abandonment.
 
Last edited:
Why?
The point of Reconstruction was to rebuild the *Union*. Rebuilding the ^^South" was a means to that end, by seeking to prevent disloyal elements holding power there. Once it becmae clear that the ex-Rebs had accepted defeat and weren't going to rebel again, interference in the South's internal affairs becasme a pontless exercise, hence its abandonment.
Sad, but true.
 

mial42

Gone Fishin'
The planter class had to be destroyed, but that wasn't nearly enough.
Why? What about the "planter class" as a class means they need to be destroyed? This is the mid-19th century US, not a Marxist revolutionary state. Class guilt isn't a "thing." Slavery is gone and the planters were far from alone in supporting the Confederacy or white supremacy.
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.
This would be literally everything. The South was a slave society; eliminating every trace of slavery would mean destroying it entirely. And again, I have to ask "why"? The moral issue is with slavery, with slavery gone, why bother destroying all the farms, buildings, bridges, cities, factories, etc that were built by slaves or with money made through slavery? That won't retroactively emancipate centuries of slaves, that won't fix systemic racism, that won't solve anything. You'd just piss off everyone in the South for generations since you'd be destroying their livelihoods for no reason and need to rebuild all this destroyed infrastructure again. The South was already devastated by the war; turning it in to a Carthage-esque wasteland for reasons of ideological purity would be incredibly harmful for no gain (which is probably why it was never even suggested OTL, not even by the most radical of Republican. Because it's insane).
 
Has anyone written anything about the end of slavery in the North? Have wondered when the last slave auction was.
Technically it did not end completely in the North until the 13th amendment. There were varying endings to it depending on the state. Most were gradually endings. Slowly the number of slaves decreased and was gone by the 1850 census. Though there were a number of indentured servants left. Good starting point even if it's wiki:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States#Abolitionism_in_the_North. The idea that the North was this bastion of freedom and abolition is a myth in reality.
 
Reconstruction was relatively successful in its aims by 1876. The goals of Reconstruction were largely rolled back in the late 1880's and 1890's. We don't need a more successful Reconstruction - we just need to avoid the OTL counter-Reconstruction. That's actually easier said than done.
 
The planter class could only survive economically after emancipation by extreme exploitation. If the land was also owned by those who did the work and the big houses made in schools I think the former slaves could have survived. The time to do this was in 1865 in the immediated aftermath of the defeat of the slave power on the battle field and with the outrage of Lincoln's murder.

If the new President threatened prosecution for treason to the former ruling class unless they agreed to give up land and probably to leave the region for maybe 14 years and the new state adminstrations were put together by LOYAL Conventions, elected by every LOYAL man. that is in large part former slaves. A special session of Congress might have been called in May 1865.

Then there could have been large efforts to educate those denied eduation under slavery.

A more radical 14th amendment might specifically legalise the large scale confiscation and provide for non prosecution for treason to be conditional on acceptance of the full citizenship nad property rights of former slaves

There might also be a specific right for former slaves and their descenants to vote and serve on juries in all states formerly in rebellion. It woudl in part be passed because of racism in the North, they would be happy for former slaves to stay in the old South.

And of course there were maybe 100 000 former USCT soldiers who could have provided security form the for elected governments.

I think that in most place except for the actual old ruling group former rebels would get civil and voting rights.

I think that a proportion of the extreme racists would choose to leave the South, possibly into places like Kentucky and Maryland.

The line would be pushed that the rebellion was forced by the former slave power

With luck by 1885 most white Southerners would say that they never 'really' liked slavery or sessession. any more than Germans in 1965 really backed the nazis.

And maybe also many white would point to their relatives who served in the Union Army
 
A more radical 14th amendment might specifically legalise the large scale confiscation and provide for non prosecution for treason to be conditional on acceptance of the full citizenship nad property rights of former slaves
A more radical 14th Amendment wouldn't have passed Congress, and even if tsomehow had, would not have been ratified. Note that OTL's 14A didn't even give Blacks the *vote*. And the 15th was only passed in a lame-duck session when thr 1868 election was safely out of the way. The Republicans dared not go to the country (or even to the *North*) on such a controversial issue.
 
A more radical 14th Amendment wouldn't have passed Congress, and even if tsomehow had, would not have been ratified. Note that OTL's 14A didn't even give Blacks the *vote*. And the 15th was only passed in a lame-duck session when thr 1868 election was safely out of the way. The Republicans dared not go to the country (or even to the *North*) on such a controversial issue.
The Amendment would be ratified by the loyal conventions elected in the fall of 1865
 
A more radical 14th Amendment wouldn't have passed Congress, and even if tsomehow had, would not have been ratified. Note that OTL's 14A didn't even give Blacks the *vote*. And the 15th was only passed in a lame-duck session when thr 1868 election was safely out of the way. The Republicans dared not go to the country (or even to the *North*) on such a controversial issue.
Basically you need to have more public support among White Northern and Western Voters. For that you probably need more atrocities by the CSA or post war "redeemer" groups (In terms of actually building support among the aforementioned white Northern/Western voters you need more Confederate atrocities against White Northern Civilians and Union soldiers. I think my previously presented scenario involving the CSA trying more of a terrorist campaign in the North (Have the 1864 attempt to burn New York partially succeed and the Confederates get caught blatantly as responsible. Also have several of the other assassination attempts by Booth and his conspirators succeed (Say Seward, Johnson, and a handful of other US government officials get murdered that night. The Rathbones at the last minute have to be stopped from attending Fords theater with the Lincolns. So Booth still shoots Lincoln but Mary Todd Panics and tries to grab him immediately afterwards. Much like Booth did Rathbone he stabs Mary Todd but unlike Rathbone he stabs her in such a way that she dies. Then the conspirators to cover their escape set a handful of fires or small explosions through the city. Only for one of the fires to (completely unintended) spread to say one of the packed hospitals for wounded US soldiers and sailors. A combination of poor building design and panic lead to the horrible deaths of say several hundred white Union soldiers. Perhaps also have the remnants of the Confederate Secret Service/die Hard Rebs either genuinely be responsible for or get blamed for the Sultana disaster and the deaths of over a thousand Union former POWs.

So you have a public that's a bit more radical as a result of "Cowardly Secesh attacks on innocent civilians) like the burning of part of NYC, the Confederacy either getting blamed for or actually say have a handful of Confederate die hards be responsible for sinking the Sultana, the murder of the POTUS and First Lady, the deaths of a handful of other high government officials, and the completely accidental deaths of several more hundred wounded US servicemen when the fire spreads to their hospital.

From what I understand with the deaths of Lincoln and Johnson the man who would have taken over as POTUS as next in line of succession was a radical republican.

And even with all of that you don't ever publicly say you're trying to "eliminate white supremacy". If possible the land confiscations get portrayed as a manner of easing the worries of the Northern/Western white working class. They were terrified that abolition would mean millions of former slaves would head north and out compete the White working class by working for lower wages.

You could try and make the land confiscation look like it'll be both Punish the causes of the war and ensure that Freedmen don't migrate north anytime soon.
 
Reconstruction was relatively successful in its aims by 1876. The goals of Reconstruction were largely rolled back in the late 1880's and 1890's. We don't need a more successful Reconstruction - we just need to avoid the OTL counter-Reconstruction. That's actually easier said than done.

You need people like Longstreet and Beauregard to be recruited speaking out and capturing the narrative before lost causers do.

That would be a very good step in the right direction.

The idea of terrorizing the South into compliance is awful. And yes, slavery is awful/evil. But continuing a cycle of terror and just changing the target is wrongheaded at best and evil at worst.

Maybe Jeff Davis and few others escaping and becoming irrelevant in exile would be a good thing.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Hang every single Confederate statesman, officer, and civilian slaveholder, ideally by their former slaves. Disenfranchise and disarm Confederate soldiers and draft them into labor battalions to rebuild the south. The assets of those executed will be redistributed to former slaves to help them rebuild. The largest few plantations will be given to the federal government to make the occupation self-sustaining. Union soldiers who've completed their tour of duty will be invited to settle in vacant land with their families. Incentivize immigration to the South by closing down certain Northern centers of immigration. Confederate sympathies are severely punished, and paramilitaries are hunted down and neutralized before they can organize on a large scale. Invest in Southern railways and industry. If the South is re-admitted into the Union*, it would be as entirely different states and territories.

*If, not when. Only when the quality of life between southern blacks and whites is equal, and there is no desire to return to the old ways.
Uh...

Advocating mass murder (because this is, without any question, cold blooded murder on a scale that would make Stalin raise an eyebrow) is unacceptable, even when discussing historic scenarios.

See ya in 7
 
Former senior Confederate officials and generals disenfranchised and denied public office.
Squash any further resistance or rebellions.
Expropiate the planter class. Give the lands to blacks and poor whites.
The Freedmen's Bureau shall serve as the executive , judiciary and legislative body for the black population for the next two decades, involving educated black people in its leadership. It shall also start a campaign for literacy.
A Constitutional Amendmdnt forbidding curtailing of civil right and liberties, or disenfranchising United States citizens on the basis of race,ethnicity or literacy unless convicted of treason, terrorism, or other heinous crimes. The terrorism clause will be used to combat the KKK.
 
From what I understand with the deaths of Lincoln and Johnson the man who would have taken over as POTUS as next in line of succession was a radical republican.
Where do you get that imprression?

From what I've read Senator Foster was not particularly radical.

A Constitutional Amendmdnt forbidding curtailing of civil right and liberties, or disenfranchising United States citizens on the basis of race,ethnicity or literacy unless convicted of treason, terrorism, or other heinous crimes. The terrorism clause will be used to combat the KKK.

Oh for Pete's sake. They were hesitant enough even about giving Blacks the *vote*.

You're making the same mistake as a lot of others on this thread. You are treating the promotion of Black civil rights if it were an an objective in itself But of course it wasn't. The Republicans were understandably reluctant to see disloyal men running the Southern States, and the Black vote seemed the only counterweight to this. However, it soon became clear that the ex-Rebs no longer posed any danger to the Union, so the Blacks were no longer needed. "And the rest is history."

Squash any further resistance or rebellions.?
With what, once the army has reverted to peacetime size


The Amendment would be ratified by the loyal conventions elected in the fall of 1865

The same legislatures that enacted the Black Codes? Good luck on that.
 
Oh for Pete's sake. They were hesitant enough even about giving Blacks the *vote*.

You're making the same mistake as a lot of others on this thread. You are treating the promotion of Black civil rights if it were an an objective in itself But of course it wasn't. The Republicans were understandably reluctant to see disloyal men running the Southern States, and the Black vote seemed the only counterweight to this. However, it soon became clear that the ex-Rebs no longer posed any danger to the Union, so the Blacks were no longer needed. "And the rest is history."
The original post asks for 1 ) Ideal Reconstruction 2) Ideal Realistic Reconstruction. I only answered to 1) so don't expect realism from my post.
 
My idea: any one who served in the Confederate military or government is banned from voting in the states of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Arkansas. This ban would be for life. Tennessee is left out do to having a pro union population, Texas is left out do to the need for men to combat the Comanche.

All of these disenfranchised southerners would be offered land out west. Seized land in the "dishonorable states" would be distributed to the new freemen. The deep south would have a radically different electorate going forward.
 
My idea: any one who served in the Confederate military or government is banned from voting in the states of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Arkansas. This ban would be for life. Tennessee is left out do to having a pro union population, Texas is left out do to the need for men to combat the Comanche.

All of these disenfranchised southerners would be offered land out west. Seized land in the "dishonorable states" would be distributed to the new freemen. The deep south would have a radically different electorate going forward.
The end goal it to end up with the lower southern states governed by freeman friendly state governments.

Some confederate veterans would simply move to the southern states not affected by the ban, probably especially Texas and Missouri. There was already southern immigration to the southwest, here it will be even more robust. New Mexico and Arizona could be come states pretty quickly. And I'm sure some would head for the plains or the rest of the west.

If enough leave, there should be a few freeman majority states, South Carolina and Mississippi most likely. Keeping a hand full of African-American senators will have huge benefits for their communities .
 
'Ideal' for whom?

If we're talking ideal for the country, push another war in short order - preferably defensive - with Mexico and get France involved. Have the South legitimately threatened (if not actually invaded) and *force* EVERYONE to work together to defend their homes against an invading army so evil they make the Russians look like the Swiss.

Less ideally -

A) Treat the KA and League as hostile paramilitary forces and react accordingly

B) Encourage firearm ownership and training among *all* Americans

C) All voting to be supervised by the US military with armed patrols of registrars for voting in the poorest areas

D) Permanent disenfranchisement of former Confederate officers and barring from public office for any general officer or elected official of the former Confederate government.

E) Early integration of schools and universities

F) Racial laws must be reversed and equality enforced (might be considered a punishment by those in the former Union states)

G) Promote minority ownership of businesses by special loan rates or partial government ownership - destroy that bakery and you're damaging federal property...

H) Severe public punishment for any and all racial violence, possibly to include exile to the most remote county in a state
 
Basically this entire conversation boils down to "I hate the South" and revenge porn. Basically otl reconstruction was very successful. Why? Because as totally imperfect as it was, as messed up as it was, as unfair as it was to an entire race of people it worked. The nation endured and stayed together. There were no mass hangings, no land confiscation, no mass imprisonment. The nation went on to not only survive but thrive.

It's nice what people here want to do through the lens of 2021. What you want to do would have never have worked and we would be living in a worse world. The South (if even one of your ideas have been tried) would have devolved into something that made Northern Ireland and Beruit of the 80's look like happy places. Armed resistance would have gone on for decades if not for a century or more.

You would have had a escalating series of union soldiers being murdered and civilian reprisals. You can screw the planters all you want. You can not however take their education, their knowledge or their connections. Just like you can send blacks to Congress but you can not give them a education to read the bills that they are voting for. You try any of this revenge porn and you get Alexander's scattering to the hills like rabbits.

There is no way the poorest of White people in 1865, 1900 or 1965 considers a black person their equal. While every TV commercial features blacks today and interracial relationships are en vogue today, even when I grew up that was considered verboten. Not so long ago. Another thing was those descendants of the planter class were still running things because that was just the social order in small Southern towns (and I am from a fairly liberal Southern town.)

I get it everyone hates slavery, White supremacists are horrible. But the old social order didn't start breaking down until poor Whites like me got university educations funded in main part by fighting this country's wars. There is a reason reconstruction worked out like it did, the people at the time on the ground knew what would work.
 
Is it plausible to have a few states remain desegregated - like, say, the Carolinas, Louisiana and maybe Virginia with the Readjusters - while the others are still captured by the Redeemers? Denying the Democrats a Solid South makes it much harder for them to get to the White House, as well as make passing something like the Lodge Bill easier.​
 

marktaha

Banned
My idea: any one who served in the Confederate military or government is banned from voting in the states of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Arkansas. This ban would be for life. Tennessee is left out do to having a pro union population, Texas is left out do to the need for men to combat the Comanche.

All of these disenfranchised southerners would be offered land out west. Seized land in the "dishonorable states" would be distributed to the new freemen. The deep south would have a radically different electorate going forward.
Was done temporarily and wrongly in my view.
 
Top