Have a smoother Reconstruction Era

That's not even enough to watch South Carolina alone (say). If Hays was offered a chance at support in exchange for reducing that to zero, he was giving up nothing.

Quite so.

I've always thought him a much underrated man. He secured a peaceful succession to the White House, in return for a concession he would soon have had to make anyway.
 
Alternately, although without the satisfaction of "for treason", confiscate land for nonpayment of taxes. And then don't sell it back in large parcels.

OTL failed for reasons discussed elsewhere at the latter, but it would be a better idea than trying to convict someone of treason by the US standard required.

I'm nor sure there was any federal tax to be collected that could not be readily paid in full by the planter elite.
 
I'm nor sure there was any federal tax to be collected that could not be readily paid in full by the planter elite.

But they didn't pay any taxes during the ACW, except for those who swore allegiance to the Union. So for failing to do so . . .

I'm not sure exactly how solid in this regard doing that to Arlington was, but with most planters cash poor, it might be difficult to raise a significant sum of solid cash - especially when they can't sell slaves to raise it and don't have a cotton crop to sell either.
 
But they didn't pay any taxes during the ACW, except for those who swore allegiance to the Union. So for failing to do so . . .

I'm not sure exactly how solid in this regard doing that to Arlington was, but with most planters cash poor, it might be difficult to raise a significant sum of solid cash - especially when they can't sell slaves to raise it and don't have a cotton crop to sell either.

Right, they would not have paid federal taxes while their states were in rebellion, but what federal taxes were these? Excise taxes? What goods did these "cash poor" planters buy during the war?
 
Right, they would not have paid federal taxes while their states were in rebellion, but what federal taxes were these? Excise taxes? What goods did these "cash poor" planters buy during the war?

I believe there was a very modest income tax (something like 3%).

And cash poor to begin with, plus post-war, would make raising ready capital a mite tricky - whereas pre-war credit and paying off debts from last year from this year's cotton and such would make it look like they had money.
 

RousseauX

Donor
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.
No, it's not, if anything the planter class are analogous to Mugabe's government. In the sense that the southern planter class was the rent extracting elite.

I mean your statement seems to be based purely on "they are taking away land from rich white people and giving it to poor black people so it must be just like Mugabe"
 
Last edited:

RousseauX

Donor
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.
This is naive at best, and at worst simply advocating for the continuation of the status quo post-reconstruction.
 

RousseauX

Donor
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.
How do you enforce an end to racist policies without violence exactly?

How do you intend on making southern state governments implement your anti-racist education program exactly (which the planter elite will block)?

How do you deal with the fact that, as of 1865, a relatively low percentage of children, black or white, would have even attended school in the south?

What is your response to KKK actively and purposely burning down schools for black children to deny them their education?

I hope it's something better than "kindness begets kindness".

Your intentions are good, the problem is that it doesn't work very well with reality.
 
Last edited:

RousseauX

Donor
But very few after about 1870.

The US Army rapidly dropped back to peacetime levels, and by 1876 numbered only about 27,000 all told, of whom about 3,000 were in the South. Given that the region contained something like a million Confederate veterans, the outcome of this conflict was kind of predictable.
You don't need a lot of federal army troops, black militias and such are capable of defending themselves to a degree, you just need the federal army to clamp down on the largest and most violent of the white supremacist militias.
 
I believe there was a very modest income tax (something like 3%).

And cash poor to begin with, plus post-war, would make raising ready capital a mite tricky - whereas pre-war credit and paying off debts from last year from this year's cotton and such would make it look like they had money.

Using the Revenue Act of 1861? That would make for some fun court battles.
 
You don't need a lot of federal army troops, black militias and such are capable of defending themselves to a degree, you just need the federal army to clamp down on the largest and most violent of the white supremacist militias.

The Federal army that barely deserves to be called a skeletal force post-1865?

I don't know about the regular army, but the overwhelming majority of the Civil War army - the volunteers - have gone home before '66 is out.

So even if the Federal Army at full strength is double what it was by Hayes's election, that's barely enough to even keep an eye on open insurrection.

Using the Revenue Act of 1861? That would make for some fun court battles.

No kidding.


Or something like this:
http://www.arlingtoncemetery.mil/History/Facts/ArlingtonHouse.aspx

The property was confiscated by the federal government when property taxes levied against Arlington estate were not paid in person by Mrs. Lee. The property was offered for public sale Jan. 11, 1864, and was purchased by a tax commissioner for "government use, for war, military, charitable and educational purposes."

Of course, that ended with this: George Washington Custis Lee brought an action for ejectment in the Circuit Court of Alexandria (today Arlington) County, Va. Custis Lee, as eldest son of Gen. and Mrs. Lee, claimed that the land had been illegally confiscated and that, according to his grandfather's will, he was the legal owner. In December 1882, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, returned the property to Custis Lee, stating that it had been confiscated without due process On March 3, 1883, Congress purchased the property from Lee for $150,000. It became a military reservation and Freedman's Village ceased to exist; however, the gravesites that were once part of the village remained on the grounds of the reservation.


But not all planters are going to do what Custis Lee did - neither his father or mother seem to have tried. Why, I'm not sure.

Either way, a lot of legal headaches, but probably easier than treason charges.
 
Or something like this:
http://www.arlingtoncemetery.mil/History/Facts/ArlingtonHouse.aspx

The property was confiscated by the federal government when property taxes levied against Arlington estate were not paid in person by Mrs. Lee. The property was offered for public sale Jan. 11, 1864, and was purchased by a tax commissioner for "government use, for war, military, charitable and educational purposes."

Of course, that ended with this: George Washington Custis Lee brought an action for ejectment in the Circuit Court of Alexandria (today Arlington) County, Va. Custis Lee, as eldest son of Gen. and Mrs. Lee, claimed that the land had been illegally confiscated and that, according to his grandfather's will, he was the legal owner. In December 1882, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, returned the property to Custis Lee, stating that it had been confiscated without due process On March 3, 1883, Congress purchased the property from Lee for $150,000. It became a military reservation and Freedman's Village ceased to exist; however, the gravesites that were once part of the village remained on the grounds of the reservation.


But not all planters are going to do what Custis Lee did - neither his father or mother seem to have tried. Why, I'm not sure.

Either way, a lot of legal headaches, but probably easier than treason charges.

That would be interesting.
 

RousseauX

Donor
The Federal army that barely deserves to be called a skeletal force post-1865?

I don't know about the regular army, but the overwhelming majority of the Civil War army - the volunteers - have gone home before '66 is out.

So even if the Federal Army at full strength is double what it was by Hayes's election, that's barely enough to even keep an eye on open insurrection.
The federal army was 20-30,000 men during the era IIRC.

This force -was- successful post-1866 at keeping some semblance of black civil rights throughout most of the reconstruction.

The failure was never really due to the lack of military resources, it was due to lack of political will on the part of the federal government.
 
The federal army was 20-30,000 men during the era IIRC.

This force -was- successful post-1866 at keeping some semblance of black civil rights throughout most of the reconstruction.

The failure was never really due to the lack of military resources, it was due to lack of political will on the part of the federal government.

20-30,000 men is not enough to meaningfully deal with the issue and all the other commitments placed on the US army.

Yes, there was a lack of political will. But no amount of will is going to turn that into a force sized for the challenge of dealing with several times its number of terrorists all over the South.
 
You don't need a lot of federal army troops, black militias and such are capable of defending themselves to a degree, you just need the federal army to clamp down on the largest and most violent of the white supremacist militias.


Black Militias existed OTL in many Southern States. They were not able to sustain the Radical governments. In particular, Governor Ames tried to use them in Mississippi in 1875-6, but gave up because it just wasn't working.
 
Why not when it was able to do so during much of the reconstruction?

How much of it?

The Republicans had already lost power in VA NC TN and GA (as well as all the Border States) by 1871. In other states they held on slightly longer, but "slightly" is the operative word. By 1875 they had only four states left, and lost MS, despite its heavy Black majority, the following year.

More important, the process was strictly one way. Once any state had been "Redeemed" for white supremacy, it stayed redeemed. Once the Radicals had lost a Southern State, they could never come back [1]. This situation of "what's mine is mine and what's yours is negotiable" could only have one ending.


[1] TN would still elect the occasional Republican Governor post-1877, but it never affected the racial status quo there.
 
Why not when it was able to do so during much of the reconstruction?

Mike beat me to it, but I would also note that even if the Republicans were clinging to power in a state, that doesn't mean that these groups were eliminated as a problem suffered by black voters and so-called carpetbaggers.
 
the Wikipedia article on Redemption confirms that blacks still voted for many years after 1877...

Some blacks voted, in areas here the Klan couldn't completely shut them down. The lid was finally nailed down hard in the 1890s. South Carolina rewrote its constitution in a way that disfranchised blacks (by some weasel method that evaded the 15th Amendment). In other states, it was continual Klan violence. North Carolina saw a brutal campaign of intimidation against blacks in the 1890s, which included violence against black veterans of the Spanish American War; it was over by 1900.

... and the last black Congressman from the South resigned in 1901.

The last black Republican U.S. Representative from the South (until Tim Scott in 2010) was George White of North Carolina. He was elected in 1896, and re-elected in 1898, serving 1897-1901. He did not resign. He did not attempt re-election in 1900.
 
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:

It should be noted that the first Jim Crow laws were enacted in the North. They became much more pervasive in the South, but the idea began in the North.

Anyway.

The obvious PoD is Lincoln not assassinated.

It's far from clear exactly what Lincoln's Reconstruction policy would have been. But it is clear that it would not have been either the Conservative Reconstruction supported by Johnson or the Radical Reconstruction pushed by Republicans in Congress.

It seems probable that Lincoln's policy would have been a mix of leniency toward ex-Confederates combined with moderate but firm insistence on civil advancement for blacks, no toleration for persecution or repression of Southern Unionists, and also aggressive promotion of the Republican Party in the South. This last element was completely absent until Grant took office four years later, and Grant was not an organizing politician. Lincoln was, par excellence.

Lincoln had a bundle of carrots to offer - Federal patronage, Federal public works. He could reach out to former Whigs like Alec Stephens. OTL, a substantial Republican Party formed in at least parts of the South. With his leadership, it would form early, be much stronger, and would contend for a share of the white vote from the start, not getting pre-empted by the Redeemers. And Lincoln would insist from the beginning on some blacks being included.

The great difficulty is that blacks were a majority in some states, and a large majority in many localities. Full enfranchisement of blacks meant black control of local government, including law enforcement.

No enfranchisement meant arbitrary white rule, and black quasi-peonage. But what rule could be formulated to reach a stable middle ground, from which the South could move gradually to full enfranchisement?
 
Top