Have a smoother Reconstruction Era

Have a smoother and more moral Reconstruction Era that allows a smooth transition into a free state, no KKK or other radical white supremacist groups, and a more general outlook in race relations between the blacks and whites of the South whilst preventing the formation of the Jim Crow Laws. Please don't declare ASB unless you state a plausible mistake or vague aspect of this scenario I forgot to mention... :eek:
 
Well that's easy. Make sure Lincoln's not assassinated. Badda bing, badda boom. Significantly more peaceful Reconstruction than OTL. Not gonna say perfectly peaceful, as that would be impossible, but significantly more so. Lincoln, from the beginning, wanted to go "soft" on the South after the war.

See his inauguration speech from March of 1865:

"With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations."

If Lincoln had overseen Reconstruction, things would have been much simpler, much easier for everybody involved.
 

Japhy

Banned
One needs to have the Southern leadership, Confederate Veterans, and the white lower class at large accept that they were beaten and that they need to accept the laws that were being enforced.

Reconstruction was moral, it was the Confederate Resistance that was inherently immoral.

Even Lincoln would have been forced to act when faced with the fact that the Pro-Confederate population by and large, was completely disinterested in obeying the law.
 
Reconstruction can be smooth or successful, can't be both. If you want it to go fast you can have Lincoln who could placate the Radicals and not piss them off like Johnson, if you want it to be successful you'll need someone like Benjamin Butler or Henry Winters Davis as President. Radical, furiously anti-Planter Class, and willing to do anything to crush resistance to federal authority. Early after Lincolns assassination, some people thought that Jefferson Davis or other Confederate higher ups had a role in his death. We know now that it wasn't, but if it was or spun to be caused by them, that could be casus belli for a whole generation of Radical Reconstruction.
 
At the Ford Theater, John Wilkes Booth ends up swallowing most of his teeth after rudely jostling a big, big Yankee.
 
Last edited:
Reconstruction can be smooth or successful, can't be both. If you want it to go fast you can have Lincoln who could placate the Radicals and not piss them off like Johnson, if you want it to be successful you'll need someone like Benjamin Butler or Henry Winters Davis as President. Radical, furiously anti-Planter Class, and willing to do anything to crush resistance to federal authority. Early after Lincolns assassination, some people thought that Jefferson Davis or other Confederate higher ups had a role in his death. We know now that it wasn't, but if it was or spun to be caused by them, that could be casus belli for a whole generation of Radical Reconstruction.

And in this scenario, something that would actually in some way resemble harshness to the losers.

We won't be seeing a world where Confederate generals become senators and representatives and governors, we'll be seeing them - at best - treated as felons.

Anything but smooth, but if you want a Reconstruction that uproots the radical white supremacist groups, you need to treat them as something to kill with fire - and speaking as someone from another century, we need to recognize that those groups did not represent a minority opinion.

The majority may not have been in favor of their violence, but they certainly weren't opposed enough - for whatever reasons - to stand in their way, or even discourage them passively (by say not voting for John Gordon, KKK big shot and political big shot).
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Well it could change class structure, even while not causing racial harmony

Quote:
Originally Posted by Derek Jackson View Post
Destroy the planter class with expropriation and exile

What good does that do? If anything the poorer whites were even more racist.

Good point that this is no guarantee of cross-racial harmony.

However, it could have interesting historical effects on the class structure and southern regional uniqueness.

So, you could have the planter class destroyed, and the southern economy and politics be dominated by white, and black, populations more inclined to populist and progressive economic and regulatory policies like several of the western agrarian states. The vacuum of capital would be refilled by grassroots accumulation by poorer whites and blacks, and by northern transplants, who could end up far more influential over the long-term.

The whites may be bitterly trying to stay ahead of blacks in the social ladder, but each side could get some support by competing northern capitalists. I could see white supremacist everything being enacted in the states with strong white majorities. In majority black states white supremacy could also succeed, but exile of the planter class in the deepest southern states, with black majorities, like Louisiana, Mississippi would further shrink white minorities and possibly forestall black political exclusion. Particularly so if white capitalists (probably from the north) find they can benefit more from continued black participation.

At a minimum, we've just increased populist and progressive potentials within both parties, but for the Democrats in particular.

So Derek's proposal could result in a very different America, even if it does not move in the direction of racial equality or reconciliation at all.
 
Guaranteeing and enforcing that guarantee of the rights of former slaves and destroying the power of the Planter class might work for this reason.

Firstly with property and security it would be harder to disfranchise former slaves

Secondly it would be possible to argue that the war was caused by the class now exiled and expropriated

For sure some folk will be racist but the majority of white folk will be no worse off than they were before.
 

J.D.Ward

Donor
Destroy the planter class with expropriation and exile

This sounds like a recipe for turning the American South into something like Mugabe's Zimbabwe, enforced by the Federal Government.

There's a dystopian timeline here if someone with detailed knowledge of post-Civil War America cares to work it out.
 
can't mix...

I agree that a smooth and successgul recnstruction is near impossible; you can't have both. After hearing the marching song of the First Arkansas colored regiment, I wonder if one or more of the colored regiments could remain together as an unofficial militia--or even occupying troops--and play a part in dealing with the KKK and redshirts. Perhaps in one or more southern states, the former slaves become an armed society, so that would-be lynch mobs find it dangerous...
 
It is interesting to see that so many people are convinced that more leniency equals worse racism. Certainly, there was a lot of racism in the south, but do people truly believe that you can stamp it out by force? That enlightenment is delivered at the point of a bayonet? Such methods usually produce averse effects. I suspect that if the radical republicans had gotten their way, the south would have become a far worse place for everyone. A cesspit of racist militias, far more widespread than they ever were IOTL.

J.D.Ward makes in interesting point, comparing such a situation to Mugabe's Zimbabwe. Especially if you compare what Mugabe did to Zimbabwe and what Mandela did for South Africa. In both cases, there was a while elite abusing the black population. Mugabe's reaction was one of vengeance, murder and mass exile. Mandela's reaction was one of forgiveness, compassion and attempts to embark on a whole new road... together.

If the north had approached the south the way Mugabe appreached his country, the results would have been much the same. If there is one thing history (and alternate history, for that matter) teaches us, it is that when we have to make a choice between a ruthless approach and a kinder, gentler way of dealing with issues, the latter is nearly always preferable.

My suggestion for a better reconstruction: education is key. Educate future generations, so that they learn to think critically. That way, they can leave the past behind them, and a legacy of hatred is no longer passed on. You see the same thing in South Africa: older people are often still shockingly racist. Not even out of any real malice, but because that sort of vile nonsense is what passed for a 'normal' worldview when they were young. Younger generations, growing up post-apartheid, have left those prejudices far behind.

So if you want a reconstruction that is both smoother and more effective? Don't look to Mugabe for inspiration. Look to Mandela.
 
It is interesting to see that so many people are convinced that more leniency equals worse racism. Certainly, there was a lot of racism in the south, but do people truly believe that you can stamp it out by force? That enlightenment is delivered at the point of a bayonet? Such methods usually produce averse effects. I suspect that if the radical republicans had gotten their way, the south would have become a far worse place for everyone. A cesspit of racist militias, far more widespread than they ever were IOTL.

The OTL South WAS a cesspit of racist militias. Making it clear that terrorism (and there is no other word for their tactics) would not be tolerated would have gone a lot further than "Wait, we still have troops down there outside coastal garrisons?"

If the north had approached the south the way Mugabe appreached his country, the results would have been much the same. If there is one thing history (and alternate history, for that matter) teaches us, it is that when we have to make a choice between a ruthless approach and a kinder, gentler way of dealing with issues, the latter is nearly always preferable.
And yet despite the fact Reconstruction was about as lenient as you could get, we see the whites running roughshod over the ex-slaves. The kinder, gentler approach failed here. Admittedly because of other reasons than it being too "soft", but it failed nonetheless. OTL was not the ruthless approach. It wasn't even the taking it seriously approach.

I wouldn't argue for doing it a la Mugabe, but Mandela had the enormous advantage that South Africa was greatly behind the norm, whereas the concept of a society with blacks having rights a white man was bound to respect was what had to be introduced in the context of Reconstruction handling racial equality.

So I'm not sure "Look to Mandela, he made a success!" is entirely reasonable here, without disagreeing that Mugabe f--ked things up.
 
It is interesting to see that so many people are convinced that more leniency equals worse racism. Certainly, there was a lot of racism in the south, but do people truly believe that you can stamp it out by force? That enlightenment is delivered at the point of a bayonet?

Well, you're consistent at least. Many of those who claim people can't be bombed into democracy have no problem with FDR Allconqueror doing it to Nazis or Lincoln doing it to Confederates.
 
The OTL South WAS a cesspit of racist militias. Making it clear that terrorism (and there is no other word for their tactics) would not be tolerated would have gone a lot further than "Wait, we still have troops down there outside coastal garrisons?"

And yet despite the fact Reconstruction was about as lenient as you could get, we see the whites running roughshod over the ex-slaves. The kinder, gentler approach failed here. Admittedly because of other reasons than it being too "soft", but it failed nonetheless. OTL was not the ruthless approach. It wasn't even the taking it seriously approach.

Let me be clear on this issue: my post was replying to the proposals for "killing with fire" and "expropriation and exile" on a mass scale. Those sort of things would, I have no doubt, make things worse in the long run. It is not OTL I am objecting to, nor do I deny that the OTL approach failed. I do think that the way to do it better would not involve continuing a cycle of violence, but rather an attempt to break that cycle.

I have no objections to enforcing an end to racist policies etc., but again: I truly believe that education, rather than violence, is and always has been the cure for evil and bigotry. Regardless of the time or place, I believe with all my heart that violence begets violence, and kindness ultimately begets kindness.
 
Remember that unlike the folk chosen by Mugabe former slaves were the people who had actually worked this land.

If you take away the leadership of the racist treasonable rebellion things might have been different

Especially if this had started in the summer of 1865, when the South knew it had lost.
 
Let me be clear on this issue: my post was replying to the proposals for "killing with fire" and "expropriation and exile" on a mass scale. Those sort of things would, I have no doubt, make things worse in the long run. It is not OTL I am objecting to, nor do I deny that the OTL approach failed. I do think that the way to do it better would not involve continuing a cycle of violence, but rather an attempt to break that cycle.

Understood. My point is that OTL was about as mild as you could get on the part of the government short of things like "All ex-army officers are reinstated in their old rank." or something along those lines. So while "But if we add education" might be an idea (see my thoughts below) - I think it's understandable that people feel OTL was bad enough ("too soft").

I have no objections to enforcing an end to racist policies etc., but again: I truly believe that education, rather than violence, is and always has been the cure for evil and bigotry. Regardless of the time or place, I believe with all my heart that violence begets violence, and kindness ultimately begets kindness.
I have mixed feelings. I think that this is the area to be fair but firm - offer all possible opportunities for reconciliation for those willing to reconcile, but those who won't . . . well, breaking laws has consequences.

I don't think purging the South with fire would have helped very much, but I don't think it would have created more problems than how disastrously OTL went from half-heartedness. The "won't accept they lost the war" people sewed enough bitterness and spite for half a dozen generations to be stuck with its legacy - how much worse could violence against the South have actually done?

That being said, I think that in order for anyone to be willing to move on, the government's hand had to be reached out to help people up, not closed as a fist, so I don't disagree with what I understand to be your basic point (underlined).

Violence may stop violence in the short term, but nothing grows from scorched earth - neither weed nor flower.

It's a mess. I think Lincoln's clear headedness was what we needed for it to be handled well - it needed men able to understand how men work, not men eager to move on or simply pursuing punishment.

And certainly not saying that there can be no forgiveness, no mercy. If the planters or others scorned it, that's on them, but those willing to beat swords into plowshares should have been left alone.
 
Understood. My point is that OTL was about as mild as you could get on the part of the government short of things like "All ex-army officers are reinstated in their old rank." or something along those lines. So while "But if we add education" might be an idea (see my thoughts below) - I think it's understandable that people feel OTL was bad enough ("too soft").

I have mixed feelings. I think that this is the area to be fair but firm - offer all possible opportunities for reconciliation for those willing to reconcile, but those who won't . . . well, breaking laws has consequences.

I don't think purging the South with fire would have helped very much, but I don't think it would have created more problems than how disastrously OTL went from half-heartedness. The "won't accept they lost the war" people sewed enough bitterness and spite for half a dozen generations to be stuck with its legacy - how much worse could violence against the South have actually done?

That being said, I think that in order for anyone to be willing to move on, the government's hand had to be reached out to help people up, not closed as a fist, so I don't disagree with what I understand to be your basic point (underlined).

Violence may stop violence in the short term, but nothing grows from scorched earth - neither weed nor flower.

It's a mess. I think Lincoln's clear headedness was what we needed for it to be handled well - it needed men able to understand how men work, not men eager to move on or simply pursuing punishment.

And certainly not saying that there can be no forgiveness, no mercy. If the planters or others scorned it, that's on them, but those willing to beat swords into plowshares should have been left alone.

Well put. We are in agreement, really. :) I have nothing further to add.
 
Well put. We are in agreement, really. :) I have nothing further to add.

The one thing I'd ask then - how would you approach this education issue?

In a general sense, I mean. From the standpoint of Reconstruciton, even those who wanted the new amendments accepted were generally lukewarm at best on "equality" - so I imagine any such program in the world we have to work with would be relatively puny.

But it couldn't have hurt to try to cement that the new order was a step forward, instead of just an odious annoyance.
 
Top