Could free elections have been achieved in the South

I would say from really standing back and looking at the whole situation, the issue is that because of where blacks have been in American society they were unable to effectively organize previous to the Civil Rights period, and even there though legal equality was achieved MLK was killed before the issues of economic equality could be raised. In the South the lynchings and anti-black violence was aimed overwhelmingly at community leaders, shop-keepers, church leaders, the people who could organize their people, and in other American communities not facing the same problems did organize their people.

So basically there has to be enough time for the blacks to organize, so that they can effectively resist whites once the Union eventually leaves. Effective resistance in this era does mean firepower, and having the arms to dissuade attacks against their community. The other way to give blacks the room they need is to radically change the way slavery ends.

If slavery ends early in the United States, I think that during the 1790's one of those, no more slave states resolution is the best bet, perhaps with the 1832 Virginia resolution passing, then your going to have a whole different dynamic vis a vis southern whites.

The other option is having slavery last longer. I saw a really good scenario where Clay wins in 1844, and western expansion ends, and because of the lack of expansion slavery is trapped and seen as the "peculiar institution" not as the "Slave Power." Economic competition from overseas sources of cotton in the late 1860's and 70's make slavery seem less like a good idea, combined with growing opposition even within the South, leads to the Seward-Davis Manumission Act of 1874, which declares all slaves born after Jan 1 1875 to be free. With the much slower transition, and without the Civil War, then blacks may be permanent second-class citizens, but not targets of white violence.

I guess this doesn't meet the timeline scenario, but what do people think about that as a timeline?
 
The other option is having slavery last longer. I saw a really good scenario where Clay wins in 1844, and western expansion ends, and because of the lack of expansion slavery is trapped and seen as the "peculiar institution" not as the "Slave Power." Economic competition from overseas sources of cotton in the late 1860's and 70's make slavery seem less like a good idea, combined with growing opposition even within the South, leads to the Seward-Davis Manumission Act of 1874, which declares all slaves born after Jan 1 1875 to be free. With the much slower transition, and without the Civil War, then blacks may be permanent second-class citizens, but not targets of white violence.

I guess this doesn't meet the timeline scenario, but what do people think about that as a timeline?

I really think that problems came out of Reconstruction and how it was managed by the Republican lead North and its carpetbaggers.

The TL you outline above could work, but the problem I see now is that Henry Clay's 'American System' - to which Lincoln was the heir and standard bearer of - is simply not going to be supported by much of the South
 
The TL you outline above could work, but the problem I see now is that Henry Clay's 'American System' - to which Lincoln was the heir and standard bearer of - is simply not going to be supported by much of the South

Not supported sure, but is not agreeing with internal improvements enough to go to war over?
 
Not supported sure, but is not agreeing with internal improvements enough to go to war over?

It is a question of how they will be funded and if such improvements should be paid for by the government or by private enterprise. The South took a very conservative strict constructionalist view of the Constitution and didn't support things like the First and Second Banks of the United States. They are right there is no mention that the Congress had any authority to found a national bank. It may have been just easier if alot more amendments were introduced.

There is also the question of free trade versus protectionalist tariffs. There are basically two, three or even four different regions of the country that just saw things differently than the others.
 
What would Alternative History be without tangents?

I would like to know are elections at all any better in the North or the West? Are we not at a point where the pot is calling the kettle black? That we should actually be considering how to make freer elections thru out the United States.

Northern states did not have a succesful terrorist campaign disfranchising 20-70% of the population (as happened in Southern States)

Yes US elections in the late 19th and early 20th century would not pass muster under modern international inspectin, they might not in the early 21st century by the way.

But the treatment of former slaves was probably on top of any other abuses in the South
 
This would also probably create more segregation which may be a good thing, since if towns are all white or all black there wouldn't be race vs race issues over public places.

it wouldn't be a good thing, all you would have is a bunch of isolated laagered up communities based entirely on race, armed to the teeth and fearful of the Crackers/Darkies in the next township. Its not a recipe for a nation, its a recipe for civil war.
 
Northern states did not have a succesful terrorist campaign disfranchising 20-70% of the population (as happened in Southern States)

Yes US elections in the late 19th and early 20th century would not pass muster under modern international inspectin, they might not in the early 21st century by the way.

But the treatment of former slaves was probably on top of any other abuses in the South

You are right. In the North it was more institutionalized.
 
You are right. In the North it was more institutionalized.

That's not what he said. In addition to the South using terror to disenfranchise blacks there were other, less violent tools. Every state that had formed the Confederacy imposed poll taxes, though typically with grandfather clauses so that poor whites (except immigrants) would be accepted. Eight of the southern states, plus Delaware added an educational requirement. Again, there were grandfather clauses, so poor whites were not disenfranchised.
 
it wouldn't be a good thing, all you would have is a bunch of isolated laagered up communities based entirely on race, armed to the teeth and fearful of the Crackers/Darkies in the next township. Its not a recipe for a nation, its a recipe for civil war.

That's better than lynchings and people being tyrannized.
 
Top