Best Case Plausible Scenario for US Blacks by 1900

Grimbald

Monthly Donor
During Reconstruction the US government picks an area (south Florida south of the upper Gulf Coast. New Mexico, Arizona, West Texas, West or East Montana or seizes land from Mexico for the purpose) that is not densely settled and offers every former slave 40 acres or more and the economic value of a mule to settle there. Blacks quickly become a majority, whites relocate and the area is admitted to the Union as a black majority / black controlled state. If the residents prefer they can have independence as long as their country is not completely surrounded by the US.
 
Without gettig too unrealistic, and with a POD after 1800, what is the best that can be realistically done for the black population in the United States?
Jefferson's gradual manumission plan goes through. It spreads to most of the rest of the South, and black Americans are steadily relocated out west. Granted, the "black trail of tears" would be unpleasant and painful, but it's better than slavery. And by 1900 you'd have black majority states out west.
 
Seriously, who in their right mind would believe that if only the South had been allowed to keep slavery for as long as it wanted, another generation or two, that those slaves would have been somehow treated better? That once their value was gone and they had no more worth... even as slaves... that the South would have offered them all ponies.

I imagine, given the context of this post, it's directed at myself.

My point was that, without the damage of the civil war, following the eventual emancipation the South would be able to convert into wage labor system with the new freedmen instead of what happened IOTL. Historically, what did occur was the share-cropping system that kept Blacks tied to the land and with about the same amount of power as they held during slavery-in other words, none at all. In order to enforce this, there was lots of official pressure and support for racial violence in order to maintain the system; for a relatively tame example, contemporary news articles in the 1870s show that there was plenty of condemnation for Blacks moving North out of the South. Such was obviously done to escape the horrendous conditions found at that time, but also imperiled the economy of the South and thus led to increased violence and repression. Now, how exactly would a wage system be better? At will employment would allow the freedmen to seek better employment conditions, as well as increase their group influence through increased economic power. Obviously this doesn't mean racism dies out at all or that conditions would be close to what they are today in 2017, but they'd at least be slightly better than what they were historically. Another generation or two of slavery is also horrific to consider as well, to be honest, and would only be partially made up for by the fact that several hundred thousand don't die during the 1860s.

This entire 'if not for the Civil War, racism wouldn't have been a thing in the South' is predicated on the notion that if, instead of running it off with a shotgun, you feed a big hungry bear coming around you house, so it will go away. Well, news flash, feed a bear, it sticks around.

That's not at all what I said or even implied, and I even did a second post to clarify such.
 
If the United States Colored Troops were encouraged to all move to one or two states when they demobilized, and Reconstruction included helping anyone to move there who wanted to, that created a majority. Furthermore, allow them to retain their weapons, including artillery and Gatling Guns. I'm sure some officers would be willing to move there, for the right price. Commission them as the state militia. Then, evict the white plantation owners, and prohibit whites from bearing arms within these states, or more likely, prohibit them from bearing arms that are militarily useful. This is ugly and drastic, and could have bad consequences down the road, but with estate confiscation, might work.
 
Even if the south voluntarily emancipates blacks, they'd be criminals or the objects of scorn and ridicule instead.

While some extremists might've wanted blacks wiped out or removed, having an underclass to be the whipping boy or cheap labor by another name was not lost on others.

Laws won't change the fact that racism was embedded in the culture.
People would have adapted and dog-whistles would be very popular.
Honestly I agree but folks are really caught up in black ethnostates it seems. As if white landowners would give up all their plantation lands to black folks without mass terror for decades.
 
Honestly I agree but folks are really caught up in black ethnostates it seems. As if white landowners would give up all their plantation lands to black folks without mass terror for decades.

I find your scenario to be achievable and a plausible path of progression.

It sets things up so that as a group, black people would have much firmer economic, political, and legal foundation and earlier too.
Only thing I would add is a more offensive bent to it when you mentioned immigrants coming into the U.S.A.

I'd add something like blacks using or leveraging the fear of incoming immigrants and playing the immigrants off each other. It would be a situation where one would see blacks amplifying the dog-whistle language used by whites on incoming immigrants to secure themselves a higher place in the American racial hierarchy.

It ain't pretty or nice, but this is the only thing I can think of in terms of dirty and practical for blacks to achieve. Basically, blacks would have to off-load the racism they face and redirect it onto others.

I can't see something like black ethno-states as something plausible unless people want to keep the U.S.A somewhat recognizable and true to its past.
 
I'm aware that you hold such views, but I just wasn't thinking of you. No offence intended. It's actually a fairly common 'lost cause' trope.

Gotta be honest, I don't understand the logic of calling me a Lost Causer when all I said is that there was an uptick in violence and resentment after the Civil War, which is confirmed by looking at Academic writings and social activist groups. I'd get your assertion if I was fawning over Robert E. Lee or talking about slavery as some sort of social benefit, but I most definitely wasn't.
 

Japhy

Banned
Have the Democratic Party completely collapse in the aftermath of the war. Be their replacement as the Second Party former War Democrats or the Liberal Republicans they're not in a great position since both of those factions were horrifically worse on racial issues then the Grant Loyal GOP, especially the Liberals. But the door is open in the instability of a complete Democratic collapse for the "Solid South" to never condense and for the violent reaction to not be able to take hold. 1876 was critical for the Ex Confederates because the compromises that had overthrown reconstruction governments were weak and their one party power wouldn't be cemented until the 1890s and the betrayal of Black's by the Populist Party. The system was a house of cards for the first decade after So-called Redemption. Without the base of a National Democratic Party opposition looses the ability for making political victories.

There are a few other ways to go about things, that get some degree of progress ranging from Grant getting a third term to Andrew Johnson not getting picked in 1864 to Cleveland being replaced by John M. Palmer. The results will vary but I think at the very least it's possible to see the complete dominance of Jim Crow we got in the 1890s. It's possible even to have some sort of situation of Economic power or political power being established and defended for Black Americans, though not both. Now it's another question about how one feels about the value of either of those with the opposite being feeble to non existent but that's been debated since Du Bois broke with Washington, it's not my place to say.

That said, I'm not saying you can pull odd Full Equality, I doubt that it can be done. All I can suggest is something better than the horrors of the Nadir.
 
Have the Democratic Party completely collapse in the aftermath of the war.

What causes them to collapse? They got 45% of the popular vote even in 1864, so were nowhere near extinction.

What might conceivably happen (had the Dems done a lot worse than OTL) is what, iirc, actually did happen in TN an AR during Reconstruction. Finding themselves (due to disfranchisement of ex-rebs) unable to defeat the Republicans, they stood down and let the radical and conservative wings of the Republican party fight it out. Naturally the conservative wing won with the help of Democratic votes, and lifted the disfranchisements. The Democrats were then able to come back, and soon regained power.
 
During Reconstruction the US government picks an area (south Florida south of the upper Gulf Coast. New Mexico, Arizona, West Texas, West or East Montana or seizes land from Mexico for the purpose) that is not densely settled and offers every former slave 40 acres or more and the economic value of a mule to settle there. Blacks quickly become a majority, whites relocate and the area is admitted to the Union as a black majority / black controlled state. If the residents prefer they can have independence as long as their country is not completely surrounded by the US.
that's not so great a plan. Along with '40 acres and a mule', the settlers would need wagons, tools, seeds, livestock, firearms, basically everything necessary to set up a self sufficient farm. And farms alone wouldn't do it, other settlers would need to be storekeepers, freighters, etc. And they would have to be tied into the national rail and road net to have their economy work. And you're talking about sending them to some of the marginal lands around the edges of the nation when it's not really necessary to go that far; at the end of the ACW, there was actually quite a bit of prime land right there in the south that had never been settled.
 
So, in a scenario where the south voluntarily emancipates by 1865 (set aside the likelyhood just for this supposition), do you think things would be worse off for the black population? With or without Constitutional amendements backing up the new status quo (assume equivalent to our civil war amendments).

It's worth pointing out that most countries which had had slavery didn't have Jim Crow-level laws afterwards. (Many of them, of course, still had some form of legal and social discrimination, but generally it wasn't as bad as Jim Crow was.) The obvious variable is that most of these countries weren't coerced into ending slavery by a bloody, multi-year war.

Then, evict the white plantation owners, and prohibit whites from bearing arms within these states, or more likely, prohibit them from bearing arms that are militarily useful.

Hugely unlikely, given that (a) the right to bear arms is protected by the Constitution, (b) many Unionists were fighting to preserve the Union rather than to end slavery, and they wouldn't look too kindly on a move to let blacks own arms whilst banning whites from doing so, and (c) even those who were fighting against slavery were often still pretty racist by today's standards, and so again wouldn't have been in favour of arming blacks whilst disarming whites.
 
Hugely unlikely, given that (a) the right to bear arms is protected by the Constitution, (b) many Unionists were fighting to preserve the Union rather than to end slavery, and they wouldn't look too kindly on a move to let blacks own arms whilst banning whites from doing so, and (c) even those who were fighting against slavery were often still pretty racist by today's standards, and so again wouldn't have been in favour of arming blacks whilst disarming whites.

If the constitution protected their right to bear arms, then why were the blacks disarmed? The constitution was ignored. I know it's unlikely, but it would result in a better p[lace for blacks. Also, in this time, forced population exchanges were not considered to be a bad thing...perhaps move all the whites out of a couple of states, and all the blacks out of some others.
 
If the constitution protected their right to bear arms, then why were the blacks disarmed? The constitution was ignored. I know it's unlikely, but it would result in a better p[lace for blacks. Also, in this time, forced population exchanges were not considered to be a bad thing...perhaps move all the whites out of a couple of states, and all the blacks out of some others.

The more plausible scenario is enforcing balcks 2nd amendment rights, instead of taking them away from whites.
 
If the constitution protected their right to bear arms, then why were the blacks disarmed? The constitution was ignored. I know it's unlikely, but it would result in a better p[lace for blacks. Also, in this time, forced population exchanges were not considered to be a bad thing...perhaps move all the whites out of a couple of states, and all the blacks out of some others.


But once again, why should anybody bother?

Post-ACW, the important thing was to get the Union up and running again, with state governments in the South which could be trusted not to try and renew the war at the first opportunity. Black rights were a priority only insofar as they contributed to that objective. As it became clear that it could be achieved w/o enforcing Black rights, interest in them soon faded. And there is certainly no reason to suppose that the measures you suggest were necessary to promote that main aim.
 
Gotta be honest, I don't understand the logic of calling me a Lost Causer when all I said is that there was an uptick in violence and resentment after the Civil War, which is confirmed by looking at Academic writings and social activist groups. I'd get your assertion if I was fawning over Robert E. Lee or talking about slavery as some sort of social benefit, but I most definitely wasn't.


There was an "Upswing of violence" only if one discounts the latent and very real violence inherent in the slave economy.
 
Top