OOC: I think there is great misunderstanding of what a DBWI is in here.
These steps, along with the other ones I mentioned earlier, would have- as GeographyDude put it-
started the ball rolling when Lincoln in this ATL would have left office in 1869.
Agreed. The fact of the matter is, the White South was going to resist (violently and otherwise) voting rights for blacks for as long as it took for the North to lose the will to enforce it. Enforcement essentially required a large army of occupation in the South for decades, and the North was simply unwilling to do that. IOTL Grant fought Congress for an 80,000 strong peacetime army, and lost. Even this likely would likely not be enough. Lincoln might do a little better, but there is only so much he can do.Trouble is, starting the ball rolling only works when said ball is on a downhill slope. In this case the Republicans would be rolling it uphill, and on a pretty steep incline at that. As soon as northerners get bored with pursuing the matter, and accept that the Union can be perfectly well restored without doing so, afaics the ball will soon come to a stop and begin rolling back again.
I am perfectly aware that Lincoln might have done things quite a bit differently from Johnson, during his own term of office. What I don't see is what he or anyone else is likely to have done during 1865-9 which makes any drastic difference a decade or two down the line. OTL, after all, Reconstruction appeared to be succeeding well enough as of 1869, even in spite of Johnson's opposition, and only after Johnson was long gone did it become clear that it was losing. It was the long haul that was the problem.
Yes, that would be one possible timeline, but not the way Lincoln did not!. . . the White South was going to resist (violently and otherwise) voting rights for blacks for as long as it took for the North to lose the will to enforce it. . .
Honestly I think the fact that Lincoln was shot and recovered from his injury pushed Congress into wholeheartedly following Lincoln’s push for a peace time military and peace time forts throughout the South.
I don’t know if Johnson would have the same kind of support if Lincoln had died. At any rate, it’s a good thing that Booth slipped and hit Lincoln in the shoulder rather than his intended target on Lincoln’s skull.
When Louisiana voted for their new members of the House and Senate in June 1866, troops were on maneuver in neighboring Mississippi. And Lincoln made sure the old school leaders in Louisiana knew this without rubbing their faces into it.
I know Lincoln was criticized by Radical Republicans for his 10% Plan in which once ten percent of a former Confederate state swore allegiance to the Union, the state could again elect members of Congress. But what the radicals overlooked was that only the persons who swore allegiance could vote! So, it was slow going for African-Americans, much slower than I would have liked. But it was also slow going for European-Americans. As I understand with Louisiana, by 1870 almost all the former slaves were on the voting rolls. And somewhat slower in a couple of the other states.. . . The elections went quietly, but nonetheless returned a Conservative delegation as LA still hadn't enfranchised Blacks. . . .
As I understand with Louisiana, by 1870 almost all the former slaves were on the voting rolls. And somewhat slower in a couple of the other states.
The Radical Republicans criticized this on the grounds that people who can't read can certainly vote their own interests and that there are plenty of smart people who can't read. The newly freed slaves actually took two tracks: (1) yes, people who can't read can certainly vote their interests, and (2) heck, we were planning to establish schools anyway!But only of course, if they could pass a literacy test . . .
The Radical Republicans criticized this on the grounds that people who can't read can certainly vote their own interests and that there are plenty of smart people who can't read. The newly freed slaves actually took two tracks: (1) yes, people who can't read can certainly vote their interests, and (2) heck, we were planning to establish schools anyway!
OOC: I've seen some historians arguing that Johnson gave the South hope that they'd win in the end; with Lincoln in office from the beginning, the cause might seem hopeless and there might be much less resistance.Agreed. The fact of the matter is, the White South was going to resist (violently and otherwise) voting rights for blacks for as long as it took for the North to lose the will to enforce it. Enforcement essentially required a large army of occupation in the South for decades, and the North was simply unwilling to do that.
IC: Probably. First off, does he survive the assassination? There was enough evidence of his Confederate sympathies to make people suspicious iOTL till he flatly denied it with evidence. If he doesn't get captured alive, yes, everyone will quickly assume he was doing it on orders from Davis. If he does, well, it depends on how hot people's feelings are.People would have reacted emotionally instead of rationally. In OTL, the wrath was directed at Booth personally, and he was hanged. Had he succeeded, there would have been a concerted effort to punish the South as much as possible.
OOC: I've seen some historians arguing that Johnson gave the South hope that they'd win in the end; with Lincoln in office from the beginning, the cause might seem hopeless and there might be much less resistance.
(Continued OOC) Well, if the South peacefully ratifies the Fourteenth Amendment, black people will probably enjoy more rights than they did de facto iOTL, even if they have fewer written in the Constitution.Which, paradoxically, might have resulted in Blacks getting fewer rights rather than more.
Without Andrew Johnson egging them on, the Southern States may well ratify the 14th Amendment, and not enact the Black Codes, so that they never provoke Congress into insisting on Black Suffrage, save possibly for those who served in the Union Army.
(Continued OOC) Well, if the South peacefully ratifies the Fourteenth Amendment, black people will probably enjoy more rights than they did de facto iOTL, even if they have fewer written in the Constitution.
The really bad thing would be if the South appears to peacefully go along with the Reconstruction Acts, so Congress never passes the Fourteenth Amendment in the first place - and then years or so down the line, the Supreme Court overturns the Reconstruction Acts, leaving nothing written in the Constitution except a mere abolition of slavery.
I think you've hit upon a key hinge point. The anti-equality politicians in the South would simply out wait the North. And combine this with a TL in which we don't get control of grain elevators and railroads and southern farmers face semi-feudal conditions, with maybe European-American farmers getting thrown the sop of racism by demagogic politicians.But only, of course, for as long as it took for northern taxpayers to get fed up with paying for a totally unnecessary army (given that the US was in danger from no one) on top of having to pay the cost of the war, . . .
I think you've hit upon a key hinge point. The anti-equality politicians in the South would simply out wait the North. And combine this with a TL in which we don't get control of grain elevators and railroads and southern farmers face semi-feudal conditions, with maybe European-American farmers getting thrown the sop of racism by demagogic politicians.
I can see that working for maybe two generations. I mean, I'm sorry. I want it to work. I like the juicy dystopian timeline in which we have segregation all the way to the 1960s.
Not that I'm a mean-spirited person, just that it's a really cool timeline. Dystopia is often cooler than is the reverse, it's a human vice, so sue me.![]()
Yes, I've always found these kind of statistics disappointing. Many people seem to support equal rights only to the extent that it doesn't inconvenience them too much.. . . After all, in 1864 44% of Northern voters supported a candidate who was willing to let the South keep slavery (never mind inequality) as the price of restoring the Union. . .
I think you raise a very important point.. . . perhaps rendering the South a one-party region for generations, . . .