Better Reconstruction Means Lesser Racist USA.

RousseauX

Donor
My point is that racism was common to both North and South even though slavery and a planter aristocracy wasn't. A harsher Reconstruction in the defeated South would do absolutely nothing to change this.

It would change the balance of power in the southern political system.

During the reconstruction you had black senators, congressmen etc because the blacks of the period had real actual franchise and thus political power.

Racism isn't as much of an issue when blacks can fight back on a political level.
 

RousseauX

Donor
The primary cause of racism is racism, that is power of one self-defined ethnic group over another; if said power is weakened, racism is weakened, not only in present but among future generations. The key to having a less "racist" US is not the same thing as making the US less bigoted; of white supremacy is sufficiently weakened as a course of policy following the war, it's cycle of perpetuation will be weakened in future decades.

Precisely, this is why keep real actual enfranchisement for ex-slaves will go a long way.
 
Precisely, this is why keep real actual enfranchisement for ex-slaves will go a long way.

Which brings us back to my main point. How do you enforce that once the Union Army is back to peacetime levels - which is going to happen regardless of who is POTUS?

"Let 'em up easy" wasn't a matter of choice. In a country which did not maintain large regular forces in peacetime, it was the only practical option once the wartime enlistments had run out.
 
Last edited:
Precisely, this is why keep real actual enfranchisement for ex-slaves will go a long way.

You can't go from half the population seeing the other half as subhumans to seeing them as equals in a couple years. The Southern whites would turn to terrorism and even inter-state civil war, and Northerners would likely side with them so long as they weren't espousing independence. At best you could get a retreat and some black autonomy.
 
It doesn't help the North is also just as racist.

That's not quite right.

The North was no more accepting or willing to integrate blacks than the South was.

The difference between racism in North vs South is in the South, before and after the war, there's a very strong theme in all the white documents discussing the topic best summed up as, "If we ever give them an inch for even an instant they will kill us all in our sleep." There is nothing comparable in the North in any fashion on any topic.
 
How does it make any difference whether it rebels or not? Since the Continental army has no way of assisting it, it is soon reoccupied by Britain.

The British Army now has to deal with pretty much the entire of of BNA (which is now all in revolt bar NFL), if they cannot beat the 13 colonies then they cannot beat the 13 colonies plus Cuba, Florida, Canada and the Marntimes.

Anyway, how does this help American Blacks? Adding Cuba and other Caribbean territories to the US (even if some ASB brought it about) would hugely strengthen the slaveholding area, more than offsetting the acquisition of a few scraps of Canadian wilderness - even supposing the could be acquired.

They are certainly not going to get too much of the British West Indies, at most Jamaica (although that is questionable) and the Bahamas (along with T&C and the Caymans). On the other hand America also gains the colonies of Quebec and NS, which means that the freeholders gain more than the slaveholders, of course thee slaveholders try to change that as in OTL.

If you are looking to improve the position of Blacks, your best way is for the US to have less slave territory, not more, If Georgia and the areas south and west of it remain British, then slavery there ends in the 1830s, providing a refuge for runaways from the Carolinas and Tennessee. So slavery in the US will be massively undermined.

You do understand that Cuba's elite is mixed race for the most part and of course the formation of the United States, the Napoleonic Wars and Britiains attempts to gain RDP are sooner or later going to affect Latin America, remember that the Cuban elite is getting a better deal, sooner or later the likes of Bolivar are going to say "I quite like some of that" and I am sure Cuba at least would want to help their fellow Latinos free themselves from colonial rule.
 
The British Army now has to deal with pretty much the entire of of BNA (which is now all in revolt bar NFL), if they cannot beat the 13 colonies then they cannot beat the 13 colonies plus Cuba, Florida, Canada and the Marntimes.

We could not beat the 13 Colonies because they were a single continental mass, with lots of space to withdraw into. As A T Mahan noted, had they been Thirteen islands, Britain would have had no trouble reconquering them one at a time.

Cuba might have tries to rebel, but isolated by the RN from all support, the rebels there would soon have ben stomped. This of course is even more the case for Jamaica or any of the smaller Caribbean islands.


They are certainly not going to get too much of the British West Indies, at most Jamaica (although that is questionable) and the Bahamas (along with T&C and the Caymans). On the other hand America also gains the colonies of Quebec and NS, which means that the freeholders gain more than the slaveholders, of course thee slaveholders try to change that as in OTL.
For the reasons I've already given, it is impossible for them to gain any of the BWI. Any rebels there are cut off from all outside support and doomed to rapid defeat. And with all those miles of water between them and the Continental Army, there is no way for the defeat to be reversed, as there was in, say, NJ or SC.

Incidentally, how does the US get NS? That colony is practically an offshore island, connected to the mainland only by a narrow, easily defended neck of land, and separated from the 13 Colonies by hundreds of miles of virgin forest. So it (and of course Newfoundland and PEI) stay British, and from there it's no harder to retake Quebec than it was to capture it in 1759. The Continentals, remember, couldn't even hold (or retake) Long Island, which was a much easier target for them in terms of lines of communication. Nor could they ever conquer Florida, due to the stretch of wilderness between there and Georgia. FTM, they wouldn't even have got the Northwest if Britain hadn't been eager for a speedy peace. So how the dickens can they hold places which they can't even reach? Why not have the Isle of Wight join the US while you're at it? It's no crazier than what you're suggesting.
 
Last edited:
What about making the Civil War take longer with the USA eventually winning but with the mopping up taking longer (Sherman falls down some stairs after taking Atlanta?) or with a more deadender CSA leadership (Lee dies and someone who tries to fight on to the bitter end replaces him, dragging things out a bit). This has some results:
-More of the South under full-scale wartime occupation for longer with a lot of the planet class having fled from occupied areas.
-More blacks join the American army and get more military experience.
-Some of the people who joined the KKK et al. IOTL end up dead due to the fighting taking longer.
-Reconstruction seen as more of a necessity due to a more devastated South.
-CSA soldiers not given as generous terms of surrender due to a more bitter end to the war and more bitterness in the North at the South for dragging things out so unpleasantly.
-Perhaps eventually some slave results with blacks taking land for themselves, making it harder to make them landless after the war.
-More anti-CSA sentiment on the part of Southern whites due to unpleasant methods of trying to maintain the war effort after the Southern economy begins to collapse.
-More of the planter class going completely bankrupt.
 
The difference between racism in North vs South is in the South, before and after the war, there's a very strong theme in all the white documents discussing the topic best summed up as, "If we ever give them an inch for even an instant they will kill us all in our sleep." There is nothing comparable in the North in any fashion on any topic.

I hope you mean there's no comparable unanimity in the North, because this is far from being solely a Southern view:

"the Herald saw only a bloodthirsty savage whose primal passions must be restrained by the discipline of slavery... To support his views from history, as well as from the Bible and racial theory, Bennett was continually lecturing his readers on the history of slave rebellions, especially on Santo Domingo, describing atrocities committed on whites by blacks in blood curdling detail." (Douglas Fermer, James Gordon Bennett and the New York Herald, pp.62-3; the New York Herald sold an average of 70,000 copies a day in 1860.)
 
Thus nearly everything about Dixie and bigotry in the South would be associated with treason and attempts to destroy the United States (in other words Anti-Americanism), considering the imbalance towards free states being greater, they are not going to have time for the Southern Elites (with Poor Whites, economic incentives will come into play and breaking up the large estates), but for the Southern Elite, there are two choices accept the new system or get out...


Why should this have any effect on racism? That was just as prevalent in the North as in the South, while plenty of Southern Unionists (Andrew Johnson for an obvious example) were thoroughly racist.

As for getting rid of the planters, how does that help? They largely lost power anyway within a generation or so, but the new regimes, dominated by poorer whites, were if anything even more racist.
 
We could not beat the 13 Colonies because they were a single continental mass, with lots of space to withdraw into. As A T Mahan noted, had they been Thirteen islands, Britain would have had no trouble reconquering them one at a time.

You have a point there, but this time round Britain (with the same resources) would be even weaker due to the fact they need to use those same forces in a wider area.

Cuba might have tries to rebel, but isolated by the RN from all support, the rebels there would soon have ben stomped. This of course is even more the case for Jamaica or any of the smaller Caribbean islands.

When compared to Cuba is far, far bigger, in fact it is close to the size of the larger colonies of BNA, not only that but there are far fewer loyalists in Cuba (WASPs that is) and not only that but Britain is simply not going to have the resources to deal with a Cuban rebellion.

If we are talking about just a Cuban rebellion then I suppose you have a point, but Britain also has to deal with the 13 colonies AND Canada/Quebec AND Florida AND Nova Scotia AND France, since they could not beat the 13 colonies AND France, how are they going to beat them all?

So yes they might have retained Long Island, but compared to Cuba it was quite easy, especially since the demands placed on the Redcoats was less than it would be ITTL.


For the reasons I've already given, it is impossible for them to gain any of the BWI. Any rebels there are cut off from all outside support and doomed to rapid defeat. And with all those miles of water between them and the Continental Army, there is no way for the defeat to be reversed, as there was in, say, NJ or SC.

You have a point about lets say T&T, however is Britain going to have the resources to fully protect the Bahamas for example?


Incidentally, how does the US get NS? That colony is practically an offshore island, connected to the mainland only by a narrow, easily defended neck of land, and separated from the 13 Colonies by hundreds of miles of virgin forest. So it (and of course Newfoundland and PEI) stay British, and from there it's no harder to retake Quebec than it was to capture it in 1759. The Continentals, remember, couldn't even hold (or retake) Long Island, which was a much easier target for them in terms of lines of communication. Nor could they ever conquer Florida, due to the stretch of wilderness between there and Georgia.

On Florida, well like I said because of the bigger number of rebels involved, the British are going devote fewer resources to defend it

On Nova Scotia, well with Canada now openly fighting against the British, there is going to be more resources and thus better support for Jonathan Eddy's invasion of the colony. Plus there is the factor of Canada itself rebelling against the British.


FTM,they wouldn't even have got the Northwest if Britain hadn't been eager for a speedy peace. So how the dickens can they hold places which they can't even reach? Why not have the Isle of Wight join the US while you're at it? It's no crazier than what you're suggesting.

As for Rupert’s Land, well it will remain British whatever the result of the ARW. But if the Americans win then it is going to be consider considerable pressure from the United States. Newfoundland will also remain British for the time being anyway whatever happens in the ARW, even a wanked Continental Army would fail to get these.

So overall I agree on this point.
 
On Florida, well like I said because of the bigger number of rebels involved, the British are going devote fewer resources to defend it
It won't be that much greater on the mainland. Canada's population is only around 90,000, so even if it sends a quota to the Continental Army, this will be too small to make much difference. Even if the Caribbean islands rebel, they have no way of sending any forces to the Continental campaigns (or to each other), and can only sit by and watch until Britain gets round to crushing them one by one.

But even supposing I'm wrong, and the US gets these territories and manages to hold them (ASB imnsho, but let it pass) that only raises a more fundamental problem. Slaves in the WI had a considerably higher mortality rate than those in North America, so if these islands are part of the US, they will import large numbers from the mainland states, whose Black population by 1860 will be quite a lot lower than OTL. The Border States may well be verging on lily-white, and even Upper South ones like NC, TN and AR will have far fewer slaves than OTL - and hence be far less likely to secede. So any alt-CSA will probably consist of the Lower South (the seven states that initially seceded in the "Secession Winter") plus the Caribbean ones. But such a Confederacy would be essentially a "Golden Circle" of states around the Gulf of Mexico - which will be controlled by the US Navy. So if it were ever set up in the first place it would be crushed in a matter of months. In that event, you probably don't even get emancipation, let alone Radical Reconstruction.

And would it even come to that in the first place? If the Border states have been largely drained of slaves, there'll almost certainly be no Kansas-Nebraska Act, and no rush of proslavery men from Missouri into Kansas (Indeed MO may well have been admitted as a free state). So no "Bleeding Kansas" and probably no Republican Party - after all, the northern farmers who provided its core vote don't give a toss about the Caribbean. That almost certainly means no secession and no Civil War, hence obviously no Reconstruction. So this whole thread becomes moot.
 
Last edited:
The Northern public may have been anti-slavery, but that doesn't mean that they were interested in black political equality. Certainly they weren't interested enough to suffer the costs of a larger army of occupation in the South, and I cannot imagine Northern elites being down with the "redistribute rich people's land to the downtrodden poor" plan; it sets a bad precedent.

I heard it put this way once, I think by somebody on this forum (apologies to whoever that is, but I can't recall who said it). Who would the average Union veteran rather invite to his house for dinner? A white Confederate veteran, or a black Union veteran? As long as the answer to that question is "white Confederate veteran," you aren't going to get a reconstruction that results in equal rights for Southern blacks.
 
If land had been redistributed and the planter class destroyed and exiled there would be no leadership to over throw the reconstruction governments and the former slaves would be both less vulnerable to pressure and have more incentive to keep their rights.

I picture a Constitutional Amendment specifically guaranteeing voting rights and education to former slaves in states and territories where slavery was legal in 1860.

The North would have gone for that as it would mean that African Americans would for some time stay in the South
 
It won't be that much greater on the mainland. Canada's population is only around 90,000, so even if it sends a quota to the Continental Army, this will be too small to make much difference. Even if the Caribbean islands rebel, they have no way of sending any forces to the Continental campaigns (or to each other), and can only sit by and watch until Britain gets round to crushing them one by one.

However (this is before the Loyalists Moved in) nearly all of them are French Speaking Catholics, considering they would pretty much be all annoyed at the British, it is not going to be a easy task for the British, when you add NS Cuba and maybe even earlier French involvement. More resources are going to be needed.

But even supposing I'm wrong, and the US gets these territories and manages to hold them (ASB imnsho, but let it pass) that only raises a more fundamental problem. Slaves in the WI had a considerably higher mortality rate than those in North America, so if these islands are part of the US, they will import large numbers from the mainland states, whose Black population by 1860 will be quite a lot lower than OTL. The Border States may well be verging on lily-white, and even Upper South ones like NC, TN and AR will have far fewer slaves than OTL - and hence be far less likely to secede. So any alt-CSA will probably consist of the Lower South (the seven states that initially seceded in the "Secession Winter") plus the Caribbean ones. But such a Confederacy would be essentially a "Golden Circle" of states around the Gulf of Mexico - which will be controlled by the US Navy. So if it were ever set up in the first place it would be crushed in a matter of months. In that event, you probably don't even get emancipation, let alone Radical Reconstruction.

And would it even come to that in the first place? If the Border states have been largely drained of slaves, there'll almost certainly be no Kansas-Nebraska Act, and no rush of proslavery men from Missouri into Kansas (Indeed MO may well have been admitted as a free state). So no "Bleeding Kansas" and probably no Republican Party - after all, the northern farmers who provided its core vote don't give a toss about the Caribbean. That almost certainly means no secession and no Civil War, hence obviously no Reconstruction. So this whole thread becomes moot.

Interesting point, so what happens to American-Americans at the end of it?

However I don't realistically expect the likes of Trinidad or the Islands in that area to fall in the ARW. Logistics are the reason.

I have however been reading up on the likes of the Bahamas and Jamaica.

As you may or may not know did briefly succeed in holding the Bahamas for a short time, a stronger American Revolution would likely help their efforts and thus even if the British take it back. The Americans have a bigger case for gaining in the peace treaty.

On Jamaica, even if the RN does succeed in taking it back because there was a serious rebellion in that part and the fact the victory for the Patriots is stronger, that might also be gained in the peace talks.
 
I think it's possible to get a better reconstruction, but I dunno if it would mean a less racist USA.

Basically, you need to the idea that the CSA reverted to unorganized territory after being taken by the Union to become prominent. This would allow the Republicans (under Radical leadership) to redraw state lines in whatever fashion they desired.

If you desire, you can browse the 1860 census data on Social Explorer. As I see it, the Republicans would seek to.

1. Create majority black states wherever feasible.
2. Create upland south "unionist" white states (such as Eastern Tennessee).
3. Try and lump as much of the white population as possible into a few large states to ensure minimal representation in the Senate.
4. Provide incentives for blacks to move out of the lowland white (or upland unionist) states and into the majority-black ones.
 
Last edited:
I think it's possible to get a better reconstruction, but I dunno if it would mean a less racist USA.

Basically, you need to the idea that the CSA reverted to unorganized territory after being taken by the Union to become prominent. This would allow the Republicans (under Radical leadership) to redraw state lines in whatever fashion they desired.

If you desire, you can browse the 1860 census data on Social Explorer. As I see it, the Republicans would seek to.

1. Create majority black states wherever feasible.
2. Create upland south "unionist" white states (such as Eastern Tennessee).
3. Try and lump as much of the white population as possible into a few large states to ensure minimal representation in the Senate.
4. Provide incentives for blacks to move out of the lowland white (or upland unionist) states and into the majority-black ones.



But all this presupposes that Blacks are going to have the vote.

It took even the supposedly "radical" Congress two years (and a lot of provocation from Andrew Johnson and his Southern friends) to come round to this - and by that time you're getting into the runup to the election year, which is no time for anything as controversial as that.
 
Top