Only a radically different US could prevent Jim Crow laws. Like preventing widespread slave imports to the US in the first place.
Well...maybe a successful radical reconstruction and more aggressive integration on the part of the US Army.
Perhaps gradual abolishing of slavery.
Or then let Abraham Lincoln serve full two terms or then he keeps Hamlin as VP and him becomes president after the assassination. But probably even then we see Jim Crow altough perhaps not so harsh as OTL.
What do you mean by "integration"? I can't recall coming across that word wrt Reconstruction.
Mainly within the sphere of voting rights and elected black officials.
Trouble is, they spent a decade on that and got nowhere. And afaics the did about as much as was politically possible.
Depends on the POD. There was a window at the end of the war where fundamental systemic changes could have been made if Radical Republican types were in charge, but if we're talking, you know, the 1868 election, the Southern military occupation is basically set to be a quagmire even with Grant's fairly decent handling ITTL
In April 1865 there was no Radical anywhere in the Presidential line of succession. And of course if Andrew Johnson dies that triggers an election in Nov 1865 which presumably brings Grant in three years early. So effectively the 18688 election is just brought forward.
Yes, prevent the rise of the Democrats, prevent the Wilsonian Presidency, and keep the Republicans the dominant player in the South. Also helpful would be mitigating the rise of the Lost Cause, since that provided a justification for northerners disillusioned with industrial society and strong federal government to rehabilitate southern gentry as respectable in politics, who in turn tried to restore society to before the civil war.Is there any way that the rise of Jim Crow could have been prevented? If so, how?
The Northern army only did 40 acres and a mule on a very limited basis. They didn't do it on a widespread basis like people tend to think they did.Trouble is, they spent a decade on that and got nowhere. And afaics the did about as much as was politically possible.
The Northern army only did 40 acres and a mule on a very limited basis. They didn't do it on a widespread basis like people tend to think they did.
if only this became the de facto normhttps://chnm.gmu.edu/courses/122/carr/seaoutline.htm
Prior to any formal, governmental policy on reconstruction, General William T. Sherman created his own land redistribution policy. Sherman meet with Edwin Stanton, Lincoln's Secretary of War, and a delegation of twenty black leaders on January 12, 1865 to address the problems of the Freedmen. After hearing that what the Freedmen desired most was their own land, he issued Special Field Order #15. This order declared that the Sea Islands on the coast of South Carolina and Georgia would be reserved for Freedman. Under this order each family would be eligible for 40 acres of land for their own cultivation [Emphasis added]. The area included the islands of Hilton Head, Port Royal, St. Helena and many other smaller islands that had been under Union control since 1861. Sherman would go on to allow Freedmen use of army mules that were were no longer fit for army service. These acts would serve as the basis for the cry of "forty acres and a mule," the basis for many Freedmen's hopes and demands later in reconstruction.
Yes, southern racists played pretty skillful poker.. . . instead of IOTL weaseling their way back into the political system . . .