See above. It strikes me that much of the lands between the Pacific and the actual existent states were theoretically available for settlement and colonization by freed slaves, no matter the presence of natives. With that in mind, the question that must be asked:
What if as part of the Reconstruction, the freed blacks of the slave states were transported in great numbers west, to settle what would become states like California, Oregon, Montanna, etc... that these would be the "black" states, in a sense. They would have certain amount of protection and oversight by detachments of the United States Army and be given funds from appropriated wealth of southern plantation owners, but otherwise they're on their own until they get statehood.
How does this little experiment go?
It really depends on the initial PODs, mainly how far back they are, and how far-reaching they would have been. But I can say this: it certainly could have been tried, to some extent, without much difficulty.
Now, before we get into the specifics, I will say that, sadly, there probably would have been some controversy & the occasional scuffles, at least in the short term-this was the late 19th Century, after all, and even some Republicans *might* be initially hesitant to support the scheme if it goes much further, than, say, a few dozen or so isolated communities of maybe a few hundred each(on average) at the start of it, if the situation is close enough to OTL.
On the other hand, though, once the surviving communities are integrated into the greater society of these future states, there is a rather good chance that they will eventually become accepted(and even embraced by some, the closer one gets to the present day) by the majority of the other people living there long term; that doesn't mean that problems won't still flare up from time to time(Omaha did see a couple of notable race riots IOTL.), but it will definitely eventually be a boon in favor of social cohesion, for sure(to clarify, the era I'm attempting to refer to would be by about 1930-50).
(BTW, it's also definitely helpful to remember that Northern racism, prejudice, what have you, even in the 1850s, let alone after the Civil War, really wasn't much worse, at least in terms of intensity, than in, say, Great Britain during this time period, even if somewhat more widespread.)
I've viewed this idea before and it has merit.
An old expression was "to eliminate Indian resistance out west, America must kill every buffalo".
An alternate take would be, "to eliminate southern resistance, one must remove every Negro from the south", the idea being that removing the old aristocracies age-old labor force, this would drive the destruction of the plantation economy and their leaders.
Many of the mountain states were largely unsettled. Four millions slaves would get lost in those areas. Granted, not all would choose to leave the south but enough would to alter the old regime permanently.
No doubt the poor southern whites would gain greater authority and, of course, black southerners would become landowners for the first time aiding in their economic developement.
instead, the pseudo-slavery of sharecropping maintained the old status quo.
I agree, but as other folks have pointed out, 4 million ex-slaves would be difficult to accomplish, simply by the logistics alone. Still, though, about 20,000 within, say, the first few years, wouldn't have been at all hard to accomplish even IOTL, and 50-100k wouldn't take much more.
I'd think it would be rather horrible... uprooting millions of people from the only lands and lives they know to send them unwillingly out to the frontier which has nowhere near the infrastructure to handle them. Not to mention, you'd be sending people used to the warm and green south to the frigid prairies of MT, WY, etc., or to the harsh dry deserts of the SW. CA at this time already had a fair sized population, and was already a state. The idea might work on some of the better lands in the west, for those ex-slaves who could work their own farms/ranches, but all of them? Not really feasible. Theoretically, you could make this plan work on a smaller scale, basically building towns on some of the better lands, making sure there was a road and rail network to connect them to the rest of the country, and then move the ex-slaves into them... but that would be a frightfully expensive undertaking...
Yes, this.
However, they were also available for settlement by whites, many of whom had proved unwilling to compete with free black labour in their own states before the war (e.g. the 1851 Indiana constitution, the 1853 Illinois Black Code). The overwhelming majority of these people would not support land being handed over to ex-slaves, either because it was designated by God and Manifest Destiny for white settlement or because they saw blacks as racially or culturally fit for little other than labouring. Best guess, you get a few small trial communities set up as part of Reconstruction before the central government loses interest in the whole thing.
There is some truth to what you write, Rob, but "Overwhelming majority" of outright opposition, is definitely pushing it a bit. As I stated earlier, I don't doubt this would be a controversial move, and that there might be some short-term problems. But this kinda does underestimate just how many Northerners were actually willing to tolerate blacks, personal prejudices, casually racist or otherwise, aside, even if not exactly viewing them as *social* equals, in most cases.
Perhaps the best example to illustrate that point may be the later life of the African-American pioneer, George Washington Bush: Although of a man of mixed heritage, who did face a fair amount of prejudice, be it racism or otherwise, he was still fairly well regarded by many early Washingtonians, as he was one of the early developers of the territory:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington_Bush
The territory with the most natural bounty for poor settlers to survive in was also one of the most remote from the Old Confederacy - Washington territory.
Another way to empty out the south would be immigration restrictions a generation or two earlier - with 1920s style restrictions on numbers and types of immigrants either in the 1860s-1870s or from the 1890s on, growing industry in the east and midwest would have to search the south to recruit labor. If the Great Migration of OTL had been earlier, longer and bigger, you'd reduce the minority population in the south alot.
This is a bit difficult(even with the incredible pervasiveness of eugenics IOTL, it took until 1924 to actually get enough people in Congress to push thru a law like that.....and there's not much wanking that can be plausibly done, short of a quasi-fascist party taking power, or something along those lines.), but could happen.