AHC: Grant considered a great president

[Mikestone8]

Tax the property of the former slave plantation owners.

They would be unable to pay the tax. Indeed many couldn't even OTL, so that large amounts of lad was auctioned off for unpaid taxes.

So all you'd end up doing is replacing one set of planters by another. and even if the latter mostly came from the North, most of them would probably soon "assimilate" and adopt the same racial attitudes as the locals- if indeed they didn't hold such views already. Racism was the norm in those days, not the exception.

Anyway how does any of this help Grant's reputation? He is till pursuing what will be seen as a punitive reconstruction policy, and when it fails (a virtual certainty) his reputation will suffer accordingly.

Imho the big difficulty about this WI is that it's darned difficult to enhance Grant's reputation both for contemporaries and for posterity. If he rejects Radical Reconstruction, and leaves the South under white rule, he will be praised for his leniency to the fallen foe - by most people at the time. But 21C observers won't be so pleased. OTOH, if he tries to achieve racial equality (and inevitably fails), he will get brownie points from 21C observers for his gallant attempt, but at the time, and for generations to come, he will be seen as both vindictive and a failure.

Lincoln avoided this dilemma by getting assassinated at precisely the right moment. So perhaps Grant's best bet is to die suddenly right after the 1872 election, while his reconstruction policies still seem to be working, so that their ultimate failure gets blamed on hi successors.

 

[Burton K Wheeler]

I'm afraid you appear to have a one-track mind. If you read the actual discussion, you'll see that there is quite a bit more going on. That you prioritise certain things and make them central to your thinking to the detriment of all other factors if your choice. Trying to then frame everyone who disagrees with your as being defenders of slavery is absurdist slander. Believe as you will, but keep such wildly misplaced accusations to yourself.

He didn't accuse you of supporting slavery, you're the one who made it personal. Try to keep things civil even when discussion is heated, and don't accuse people of accusing you of things, it gets too recursive.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

I think Grant was, all things considered, a very good president. However, he faced a slew of issues that were beyond his control. The bloody failure of the Peace Policy at Little Bighorn was not his fault, but it threw public perception of it into the gutter. Similarly the Panic of 1873 was not his fault, but he gets flack for it just the same.

Some issues he could have controlled, reigning in some of the corruption, not leaning on his army comrades as much, but even then he cant really stop people from trying to enrich themselves through politics.

All in all, he did the best he could through numerous trying situations. Historians are finally correcting that image.

 

[Mikestone8]

All in all, he did the best he could through numerous trying situations. Historians are finally correcting that image.

Yep. There's no reason to suppose that another POTUS wold have fared any better than Grant, either on the corruption or the reconstruction front.

 

[Amadeus]

(Admitedly, that sophistication may have resulted in choices of which many people may today disapprove, such as exploiting anti-Catholicism on the school issue, and declining to send fedeal troops to prop up Ames' government in Mississippi. As I put it, "As Grant later told Mississippi's African American Congressman John Lynch, he had been on the verge of sending federal troops to support Ames, when a delegation of Ohio Republicans came to tell him that if he did so, Hayes would certainly lose to Allen, and Ohio would be sure to vote Democratic for president in 1876. Grant could count: Mississippi had only eight electoral votes, Ohio, twenty-two. Without Ohio, the Republicans' chances of retaining the presidency were dim. So Grant reluctantly decided that the interests of Mississippi's African Americans had to be sacrificed. After all, the Republican government in Mississippi could never survive a Democratic presidential victory in 1876, anyway. Once again, we see how wrong it is to underestimate Grant's political sophistication.")

Ironically, this calculation didn't change anything as Hayes was elected Governor and then President only to end Reconstruction anyway.

 

[History Learner]

Ironically, this calculation didn't change anything as Hayes was elected Governor and then President only to end Reconstruction anyway.

That's kinda the point, there; either way we were going to end up with the same result. That's the unfortunate reality of the Post-Civil War era, in that there was honestly nothing that could be done in the long run, as Northern voters were going to be unwilling to pay for the cost, in both blood and money, for trying to create a Post-Racial Democracy in the South. You could either foster a faster reconciliation with Southerners with all that implies or you'd get OTL or an even worse mess.

 

[Johnrankins]

Except OTL's Jim Crow was already revenge fantasy, same with Lost Cause advocacy. Turmoil and division already happened in OTL's Jim Crow south.
If the Union were to actually have taken their reconstruction and construction efforts seriously, they would have sanctioned the southern leadership through barring them from ever taking political office again. They literally rose up in armed rebellion against the government, for god's sake, pardoning and even rewarding them with the privilege of a political post was a terrible idea.
Ultimately, i believe both reconciliation and punishment should have been enacted upon the southern states after the war if the goal of the Union was to ensure that the racist, elitist political structures of the region would be dismantled in order for something new to flourish in its place. Patience was too low and the rewards of a quick short-term release of responsibility were prioritized, however unfortunately. They should have read their Macchiavelli a bit more thoroughly.

At the very least they should have banned all former CSA office holders, State office holders in Rebel states and CSA military officers above the rank of major or lieutenant commander barred from ever holding office by constitutional amendment with no ability to be pardoned. They should have been grateful to keep their heads.

 

[Johnrankins]

I'll agree that justice and fairness should focus on the victims of mistreatment rather than the perpetrators.
However, i will say one thing more, mainly that ensuring social progress continues uninterrupted requires ensuring that the obstacles that created inequality in the first place don't come back. In this case, keeping the WASP class and racism down and in its due place is absolutely necessary for ensuring equality. This is why i'm a libertarian socialist (i believe the capitalist class' assets should be seized and distributed equally among all of the population in order to promptly dissolve class division as we know it), but that's an argument for another place.

Guess what? When 80% and upwards are WASPs and that have a vote anything that seems to be aimed at them is a nonstarter. Any politician stupid enough to do that is going to be voted out next election. Are we discussing real life or an ASB scenario?

 

[GauchoBadger]

Guess what? When 80% and upwards are WASPs and that have a vote anything that seems to be aimed at them is a nonstarter. Any politician stupid enough to do that is going to be voted out next election. Are we discussing real life or an ASB scenario?

Frankfully, that depends on whether a successful Reconstruction (as Lincoln originally envisaged it) was possible or not due to the general circumstances.
If nothing could have been realistically done to mitigate racism, social inequality and southern particularist sentiment, then i'm afraid this thread may be futile.

 

[Johnrankins]

Well, I'm glad to hear that. It's a far cry from the blood-thirsty "pUnIsH tHe tRaItOrS!" revenge fetishism we see all too often.




On the matter of the, ah, application of justice, I fear we shan't agree. Putting that aside, however, the more thread-relevant point is that your agenda of social progress -- which might well be admirable -- is bound to have highly negative effects on society if it should be enforced by violence (and it would have to be). Now, one might say that this would best serve the cause of justice in the long term. I suspect you would. But that being neither here nor there, the fact remains that it would give Grant a blood-soaked legacy, which would be extremely divisive. It's certainly not the recipe for a reputation as a great President.

As such, having discussed justice in some detail, we do come back to the realities of history-- which is often a great succession of injustices. For Grant to be regarded as a great President, he'd have to be one that rejects vengeance in favour of very explicit reconciliation. This would undermine the Lost Cause narrative, and make many leading Southerners feel like a part of a successful nation after an unfortunate crisis-- instead of like defeated enemies unwillingly kept within a union they still detest. History would still be imperfect and full of injustices, but there would be fewer divisions and less bitterness, which would yield hope for earlier improvement of race relations (without OTL's notorious "set-backs"). Grant would be seen as one of the instigators of all this "smooth sailing", and this would give him a stellar reputation.

I agree, all history is full of injustices and always will be. That is because no two people can agree completely on what is just. All you can do is the best you can under the circumstances. Barring from office for life is possible, seizing all the property and giving it to ex-slaves is not. The most extreme I could see there is seizing the property and handing it out to all Union Veterans regardless of color and even that would have been seen as very extreme and might have cost more than it would be worth. Lynchings were bad enough as is without having "property stolen by the government and given to niggers" which is exactly how it would have been seen and phrased by almost all Southerners and a whole lot , if not a majority. of Northerners.

 

[Johnrankins]

Frankfully, that depends on whether a successful Reconstruction (as Lincoln originally envisaged it) was possible or not due to the general circumstances.
If nothing could have been realistically done to mitigate racism, social inequality and southern particularist sentiment, then i'm afraid this thread may be futile.

The first is impossible, the second is very unlikely but the third is possible. That alone would have made things much better in the long run. It would have at least started the US on the right road. Short of ASB mind control you aren't going to get people to switch their opinions like turning on and off a light switch.

 

[Johnrankins]

I think Grant was, all things considered, a very good president. However, he faced a slew of issues that were beyond his control. The bloody failure of the Peace Policy at Little Bighorn was not his fault, but it threw public perception of it into the gutter. Similarly the Panic of 1873 was not his fault, but he gets flack for it just the same.

Some issues he could have controlled, reigning in some of the corruption, not leaning on his army comrades as much, but even then he cant really stop people from trying to enrich themselves through politics.

All in all, he did the best he could through numerous trying situations. Historians are finally correcting that image.

Most of his bad rep is due to "Lost Cause" revisionism. Not only was he the one to whip Bobby Lee he had the best civil rights record of any president until at least FDR if not Eisenhower.

 

[Johnrankins]

Ironically, this calculation didn't change anything as Hayes was elected Governor and then President only to end Reconstruction anyway.

Because Hayes made the same calculation. He became president without too much fuss because of a deal. If he doesn't make the deal it is likely that Tilden would likely get in and he would have ended reconstruction anyway. Reconstruction would have ended either way. The only way it wouldn't have is if Hayes would have had a much clearer victory.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

Most of his bad rep is due to "Lost Cause" revisionism. Not only was he the one to whip Bobby Lee he had the best civil rights record of any president until at least FDR if not Eisenhower.

In fairness probably Johnson and signing the Civil Rights Act. Grant certainly was not the drunken/incompetent politician he gets painted as by many pre-21st century historians. There were indeed some things he could have done better on (mainly corruption IMO) but he smacked down the 1st KKK hard, pushed for a fair Reconstruction and integration of the African American population, and also helped heal over the wounds of the Civil War. It certainly was not his fault Hayes threw it away for a single electoral vote in 1876.

Grant is quite severely underrated as a president.

 

[Mikestone8]

Barring from office for life is possible

And was in fact done, by Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. However, in 1872 Congress, despite still being heavily Republican, removed these disabilities from virtually al ex-Rebs.

There was simply no will to enforce anything punitive.

BTW, even while the disabilities were still in force, VA, NC, TN and GA were "redeemed" from Republican rule. Evidently the Democrats just found candidates who weren't disqualified, but shared the political and racial views of those who were.

 

[Mikestone8]

Ironically, this calculation didn't change anything as Hayes was elected Governor and then President only to end Reconstruction anyway.

To end it in just two remaining states. Everywhere else it was already effectively over.