Another great update! The seeds of Reconstruction have been sown and I'm eager to see its fruits!
Disillusioned, most returned North by late 1863.
Frankly speaking, good riddance. Those lessees were nothing but opportunists and the lessee system was hardly better than slavery.
The “home farm” system was first instituted by General John Eaton in the Mississippi Valley in early 1863. Instead of leasing the land to Northern factors or loyal planters, the abandoned, and later confiscated, plantations would be turned over to the freemen, who were free to work them as they saw fit.
African-American ownership of land is going to go a long way to achieve prosperity for the newly freedmen. With African-American ownership of land, I suspect that African-Americans will have greater bargaining power with their employers on wages for a long-time. That said, the crop failures of 1866-67 (owing to extreme weather conditions as well as the destruction of levees on the Mississippi, Red and Arkansas Rivers) does a lot of damage to the future of freedmen. On the other hand, the African-American preference to cultivate food over cotton might at least alleviate the near starvation conditions experienced by those in Georgia, South Carolina and Alabama during early Radical Reconstruction IOTL. (Maybe? It didn't really work out for the African-Americans in South Carolina.I'm optimistically assuming that the African-Americans have taken over enough land by the end of the war to at least restore food production to just slightly less than pre-war levels).
Nowhere was this more evident than in Louisiana, whose experience of Reconstruction would profoundly affect and even shape the President’s and the Congress’ intentions and perceptions regarding the future, and result in a struggle between them as they both tried to take charge.
Sounds ominous. I'm guessing that this relates to... very, very resilient prejudices in Louisiana's political leadership. IIRC the Radical Republican candidate finished behind a pro-slavery Unionist during an election for state officials. Given the increased radicalization of the North, I suspect that such news (if it happens) would not be received well. Or maybe some Confederates under Taylor and Cleburne raid Louisiana and cause disruption to the Reconstruction efforts? Either way, I'm interested to see what'll happen next.
I just remembered something else, it was mentioned earlier that Longstreet would not be with the Confederates by the end of the war. I wonder if he sees the situation and realizes that the black people have capacity to govern, and realizes that he not only needs to get out in order to reclaim any privileges, he should get out in order to support this Reconstruction.
It will be interesting to see when he ditches the rebels. There is definitely ample reason for him to do so quickly.
Probably not till Richmond is threatened but I suspect that either suit before or after it is taken is when he will do so. There is much more Northern victory along the Mississippi, and the Eastern Front is the only thing which is even remotely successful for the rebels, and that only because they can claim that the union hasn't moved very far into Virginia.
I wonder if partners Lincoln is thinking that there could be a big defection. Does he or someone in his White House suspect that someone like Longstreet might be willing to come back to them?
I would note that this goes against Longstreet's character. Longstreet was actually among the last officers in the Army of Northern Virginia to accept surrender. During the retreat to Appomattox Court House, Longstreet rebuked William Pendleton, the incompetent artillery commander of the Army of Northern Virginia, for asking Longstreet to approach Lee with the idea of surrendering to Grant. Longstreet said something to the likes of "He was there to back up Lee, and not pull him down." When Grant sent a courier urging surrender, Longstreet shook his head and said "not yet." Finally, before the discussion of surrender at the McLean house, Longstreet assured Lee that Grant would give fair terms, but if not "let us fight it out." Hence, I feel that Longstreet defecting would be highly uncharacteristic for a man with unquestionable loyalty and duty (mind you, he'll tell the truth if he thinks the other is wrong - see Longstreet at Gettysburg).
As for Longstreet's racial views, he's not exactly a racial egalitarian. He felt that as a "conquered people" it was wise for the South to accept the terms and conditions of Reconstruction. This included acceptance of freedmen's legal rights such as voting. However, there is evidence that Longstreet was also motivated by the opportunity to prevent any possible injury to white Southerners caused by black suffrage. Longstreet, like many fellows in his time, was convinced of the African's racial inferiority. In 1867, Longstreet writes:
Since the negro has been given the privilege of voting, it is all important that we should exercise such influence over that vote, as to prevent its being injurious to us, & we can only do that as Republicans. As there is no principle at issue now that should keep us from the Republican party, it seems to me that our duty to ourselves & to all our friends requires that our party South should seek an alliance with the Republican party.
Congress requires reconstruction upon the Republican basis. If the whites won't do this, the thing will be done by the blacks and we shall be set aside, if not expatriated. It then seems plain to me that we should do the work ourselves, & have it white instead of black & have our men in public office..
Still, that isn't to say that Longstreet doesn't deserve credit for espousing and actually fighting for freedmen's rights. He willingly led a bi-racial force of policemen and militia to counter anti-Reconstruction militias in Louisiana. However, I don't think that Longstreet would be motivated to betray the Confederacy out of sympathy to freedmen.