Could Reconstruction have been enforced better?

You could say secession was illegal and breaking the law implies punishment and a state losing its statehood is its punishment for breaking the law.

So States aren't allowed to leave the Union but if they do they are punished by getting kicked out of the Union?
 
So States aren't allowed to leave the Union but if they do they are punished by getting kicked out of the Union?

They aren't kicked out of the Union, they lose their statehood which is a different thing. They would still be US territory. PR is not a state but it is still considered part of the United States. If someone would invade PR right now it would be considered by everyone as a direct attack on the United States because it is part of the United States.
 
They aren't kicked out of the Union, they lose their statehood which is a different thing. They would still be US territory. PR is not a state but it is still considered part of the United States. If someone would invade PR right now it would be considered by everyone as a direct attack on the United States because it is part of the United States.

It depends on what the goal actually was. Was it to preserve the union or to help freedman integrate at the expense of poor whites?
 
It depends on what the goal actually was. Was it to preserve the union or to help freedman integrate at the expense of poor whites?

Preserve the Union. However, to most Republicans this implied having loyal governments in the Southern States, and they were understandably sceptical about the ex-Rebs sincerity in swearing renewed allegiance. Hence their flirtation with Freedman suffrage. However, as it became clear that the ex-Confederates really had accepted reunion and would not rebel again in the foreseeable future, and also that enforcing the Freedmen's political rights would take a bigger effort than anyone would ever be willing to make, the whole project was quietly abandoned.
 
It depends on what the goal actually was. Was it to preserve the union or to help freedman integrate at the expense of poor whites?

The intended goal would be irrelevant; the required measures to help freedmen is inevitably going to hurt poor whites due to the glut of free labor into the market if the unskilled black workers aren't somehow kept out of the broader economic system. Its the same with anti-immigrant sentiment in the North; the poor are going to be jockying for jobs, and unless the freedmen are kept out (By keeping them on the plantation) you're inevitably going to have competition.
 
It depends on what the goal actually was. Was it to preserve the union or to help freedman integrate at the expense of poor whites?

Which has zero to do with the argument which was legalistic. The argument I made was about whether "State Suicide Theory" could be legally viable with the right arguments. His argument was
So States aren't allowed to leave the Union but if they do they are punished by getting kicked out of the Union?
. My reply to that is that they wouldn't be "kicked out of the Union" but revert to territorial status.
 

samcster94

Banned
They aren't kicked out of the Union, they lose their statehood which is a different thing. They would still be US territory. PR is not a state but it is still considered part of the United States. If someone would invade PR right now it would be considered by everyone as a direct attack on the United States because it is part of the United States.
That would be an interesting idea(the idea of a state losing statehood). How could that ever happen?
 
The theory is that once the state voted to secede it committed suicide and thus reverted to territorial status.

Ironically, this notion had been floated as early as the Secession Winter of 1860/1, by, of all people, Andrew Johnson.

According to Stampp[1], in a speech in Delaware on Dec 19, Johnson argued that a disloyal State would revert to the condition of a Territory.

Practically speaking, though, the question had little significance. Postwar, even the Radicals were mostly keen to get the South readmitted asap, so that reconstruction (on their terms) would be a fait accompli before the 1868 election campaign got under way. They were eager to ram Black suffrage through before Northern opinion (which mostly varied from unenthusiastic to downright hostile) had a chance to harden against it

[1] And the War Came, Ch 3.
 

samcster94

Banned
Ironically, this notion had been floated as early as the Secession Winter of 1860/1, by, of all people, Andrew Johnson.

According to Stampp[1], in a speech in Delaware on Dec 19, Johnson argued that a disloyal State would revert to the condition of a Territory.

Practically speaking, though, the question had little significance. Postwar, even the Radicals were mostly keen to get the South readmitted asap, so that reconstruction (on their terms) would be a fait accompli before the 1868 election campaign got under way. They were eager to ram Black suffrage through before Northern opinion (which mostly varied from unenthusiastic to downright hostile) had a chance to harden against it

[1] And the War Came, Ch 3.
Exactly, and they got lucky their amendments did pass for later use.
 
I think it could work with more solidly black-majority MS/SC. The Feds were always going to lose interest but with state leadership more securely in Republican hands, the state militia could be a tool for suppressing night riders etc. Once the system was sufficiently established, whites would either leave or make their peace. Remember that the Va Readjusters and the NC Fusionists were both wiling to ally with blacks, not (I assume) because they had deeply held feelings about equality but because it would help them win. Having four or so southern senators would also mean the Republicans would have to keep giving lip service to voting rights etc which could change things on the federal level.
 
Top