AHC: The State of Lincoln OR Freedmen Oklahoma

Half the tribes were against the Confederacy. Possibly because, you know, the Five Civilized Tribes were driven out of the South by Southern State governments to make room for their own aristocracy to speculate on lands and use it for slave plantations. These tribes did everything to be acceptable to the Southerners and it still wasn't enough. Besides, it makes more sense to make South Carolina or Mississippi a Freedman state. More of them around already, and it acts as security since the North can be certain they would not support ex-Confederates.
 

missouribob

Banned
Agree with Clandango. The logistics and cost of moving tens/hundreds of thousands of blacks west when you could just create a Freedman state in the south makes the idea almost as ASB as sending them to Liberia.
 
Disagree. Evicting a bunch of white southerners in heavily populated and already developed areas is highly unlikely, while "giving" the African-Americans undeveloped land that is "empty," because hey, no on cares about Native Americans, is much more plausible.
 
Working on an ASB Weird West type timeline that incorporates this idea. What about Florida? It was the least populated Confederate state.
 
Oklahoma is far more likely than making a new state in the south. Even after the war, the government wasn't given the ability to carve up states. The entities as they were still existed. And it wouldn't have to cost the government anything, as it was implyed that it would be migration to the west, not forcible relocation.

If that is the case, I imagine that there would be a big wave of black veterans to the area as soon as colonization was opened up, with it slowing down for decades until the situation in the south gets worse again, and as the black population grows. Much of what would have been the Great Migration would probably end up there, due to the idea of having "land of our own." Its possible that Oklahoma becomes a state later. or that after the initial wave the white settlers would become to too much and take over much of the rest of the black migration.
 
They couldn't carve out states but couldn't they create reservations within existing states? Could a freeman administered territory be considered equivalent to an Indian nation?
 
They couldn't carve out states but couldn't they create reservations within existing states? Could a freeman administered territory be considered equivalent to an Indian nation?

Thats maybe possible, but then you have to deal with county lines that exist. And again, at that point you are evicting whites from their land in favor of freedman, which people would never have done.
 
Thats maybe possible, but then you have to deal with county lines that exist. And again, at that point you are evicting whites from their land in favor of freedman, which people would never have done.

I was wondering if there might be any sparsely populated areas in the South by the time of the Civil War (especially if warfare led to people abandoning areas), but I suppose that would be far from enough territory to build a reservation with. The Sea Islands were probably a special case.
 
Confederate general Nathan Bedford Forrest had proposed in 1865 before the end of the war to hire Black soldiers and freedmen in constructing a railroad for the Memphis and Little Rock Railroad Company, paying them with $1/day and land along the railway line.[150] This proposal later gained the endorsements of Sherman, Howard, Johnson, and Arkansas Governor Isaac Murphy.[151] Howard transported several hundred freedmen from Alabama to Arkansas for work on the line. He appointed Edward Ord to supervise the project and protect the freedmen from Forrest.[150]

strange evolution for an idea
 
So, a long running idea that has been mentioned in many alt-Reconstruction posts is the idea that the Freedmen could be granted land to homestead out West. This idea might appeal to several different groups as it would not only give the freedmen land, independence and a chance for prosperity, but would also remove them from the South (although many rich landholders would regret the loss of cheap labor, I would assume that other parts of Southron society might welcome the move after the War). There are, of course, many hurdles to this notion - but, lets assume that a Freedman Homestead Act is passed as part of reconstruction.

Since the Indian Territory joined the Confederacy...

That's a misstatement. The Five Civilized Tribes allied with the CSA, but powerful elements in each tribe declared for the Union. These were known as "Pin Indians", because they wore collar pins declaring their allegiance. (John Ross, Paramount Chief of the Cherokee, was a Pin Indian leader, even though he had been overruled by Stand Watie's Ridge Faction when the tribe chose sides.) The greater Civil War was reflected by civil wars within the tribes.

Furthermore, I'm going to suggest that this territory would, obviously, be named "Lincoln" for reasons that are obvious...
Not if Lincoln is alive, and if he has been killed, this project isn't even starting until 1869.

and that the territorial capital might be called Quincy in honor of John Quincy Adams. I would also suspect that Frederick Douglas would be appointed the first territorial governor, assuming he would want the position.

Interesting suggestion, but I doubt that even a Radical Republican administration would go that far.

So, how do you think this territory would develop over the course of the 19th and ewarly 20th century? I'm assuming it might eventually be given statehood, but that would be well in the future, assuming racial attitudes aren't radically different in the ATL than in OTL (although Republicans would certainly fight for statehood as it would give them two further Senators and at least three electoral votes).

For that last reason, it might happen in 1889-1890. (That was when the Republicans created six new states in the northwest: SD, ND, MT, WY, ID, WA.)

Also, how would having a territory dedicated to Freedmen affect African-American culture in subsequent years?

In that particular location, there's going to be a lot of conflict with the Indians. Even the Unionist Indians won't be friendly - John Ross was a slaveowner. (Famous aphorism on the grades and vectors of victimology: "When the Cherokee were driven out of Georgia on the Trail of Tears, they took their slaves with them.")

If "Lincolnia" becomes majority black and black-controlled, it will become a "Mecca" for discontented blacks elsewhere. The question arises whether it can accommodate all such migrants; it may well become a slum state, overrun with impoverished migrants reduced to indentured labor.
 

missouribob

Banned
If "Lincolnia" becomes majority black and black-controlled, it will become a "Mecca" for discontented blacks elsewhere. The question arises whether it can accommodate all such migrants; it may well become a slum state, overrun with impoverished migrants reduced to indentured labor.
I'm assuming that it will have a primate city with rolling slums and indentured labor otherwise. Still if we assume that such a place has a lower cost of labor and decent business friendly practices by the late 20th century it should be relatively developed. I'm guessing at least as rich as OTL Mississippi.
 
Top