How Long Could Reconstruction Have Lasted

Assuming that there is no limit, sorry i couldnt find anywhere to put it, so it may spill over into after 1900, how long could Reconstruction (if you can call it that), last? Til the 1890s? Beyond then? Would it be possible for it to last into the 1900s?
 
Depends what you mean by 'Reconstruction'. Had foremr slaves been compesated with lands previously belonging to treasonous rebels then they would have been economically secure enough that there would not be a chance of disfranchining them

Had the power of the planter class been destroyed although racism woudl still be a problem there would not be the incentive to overthrow lawful governments in the South
 
It could last until WWI (assuming, of course, that some version of WWI even happens in the early 20th century). In OTL, two things ended Reconstruction: the Republicans selling out all the black people in the late 1870s, and the Spanish-American War (Yankees and Southrons coming together to kill Spaniards).
 
It could last until WWI (assuming, of course, that some version of WWI even happens in the early 20th century). In OTL, two things ended Reconstruction: the Republicans selling out all the black people in the late 1870s, and the Spanish-American War (Yankees and Southrons coming together to kill Spaniards).


The Republicans had no choice. They'd lost control of the HoR so couldn't get appropriations to pay for military intervention in the South.
 
The Republicans had no choice. They'd lost control of the HoR so couldn't get appropriations to pay for military intervention in the South.

If the Republicans had protected black voting rights, they would have maintained control of the House. It's their own fault they lost the House in the first place.
 
If the Republicans had protected black voting rights, they would have maintained control of the House. It's their own fault they lost the House in the first place.

Protect them with what?

Once the Army reverted to peacetime dimensions, it numbered only around 30,000 (much of it needed outside the South) as against around a million Confederate veterans. It recalls a cynical football commentator who observed that "The tide turned as the opposing team walked onto the field".
 
Protect them with what?

Once the Army reverted to peacetime dimensions, it numbered only around 30,000 (much of it needed outside the South) as against around a million Confederate veterans. It recalls a cynical football commentator who observed that "The tide turned as the opposing team walked onto the field".

There was a short time in the 1860s where the federal government did protect black voters. The result was non-Democrat representatives and Senators for the first time since the 1790s. There were even black Congressmen. The federal government chose to withdraw the army.

Edit: Also, I just checked Wikipedia, and it looks like the Republicans controlled the house even up until 1876, which is when they sold out the blacks in the South.
 
If the Republicans had protected black voting rights, they would have maintained control of the House. It's their own fault they lost the House in the first place.

Yes it was. All they had to do was to enforce the 2nd clause in section 2 of the 14th Amendment: But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
 
Yes it was. All they had to do was to enforce the 2nd clause in section 2 of the 14th Amendment: But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

It's kind of confusing, tbh. You would think that the famously power-hungry politicians of the time would put political power ahead of racism. If I was a Republican Senator at the time, I would have pushed hard to keep federal troops in the South to keep those damn Democrats out of Washington.
 
It's kind of confusing, tbh. You would think that the famously power-hungry politicians of the time would put political power ahead of racism. If I was a Republican Senator at the time, I would have pushed hard to keep federal troops in the South to keep those damn Democrats out of Washington.

Could the federal government afford to keep doing that? The number of troops required to occupy 11 states (covering nearly 2 million square km) would have to be pretty large. In the pre-income tax era, I'm not sure they could maintain that kind of military spending indefinitely. I would imagine that the public enthusiasm for a permanent military occupation of the South wouldn't have been that strong, either.

You're focusing on Southern black voters, but I don't think we can assume that Northern voters would have stood by the GOP no matter what. How much did the average Northerner care about black civil rights in the South in the late 19th century? At this point in U.S. history, the two parties weren't as entrenched as they are now. Parties had risen and fallen (Federalists, Whigs, various splinter factions of the Democrats). The ascendent Republican Party was only 20-some years old. If it were to insist upon an indefinite occupation, you might well see it split apart.
 
Last edited:
There was a short time in the 1860s where the federal government did protect black voters. The result was non-Democrat representatives and Senators for the first time since the 1790s. There were even black Congressmen. The federal government chose to withdraw the army.

They didn't withdraw the army until 1877, by which time the Republicans controlled only SC and LA. The other nine Confederate States (and all the Border States) had been "redeemed" even before the troops were withdrawn.



Edit: Also, I just checked Wikipedia, and it looks like the Republicans controlled the house even up until 1876, which is when they sold out the blacks in the South.

If you look closer, I think you'll find they lost it at the 1874 midterms.

You are correct in the sense that the new Congress didn't meet until Dec 1875, but the old one had expired in March.
 
Could the federal government afford to keep doing that? The number of troops required to occupy 11 states (covering nearly 2 million square km) would have to be pretty large. In the pre-income tax era, I'm not sure they could maintain that kind of military spending indefinitely. I would imagine that the public enthusiasm for a permanent military occupation of the South wouldn't have been that strong, either.

You're focusing on Southern black voters, but I don't think we can assume that Northern voters would have stood by the GOP no matter what. How much did the average Northerner care about black civil rights in the South in the late 19th century? At this point in U.S. history, the two parties weren't as entrenched as they are now. Parties had risen and fallen (Federalists, Whigs, various splinter factions of the Democrats). The ascendent Republican Party was only 20-some years old. If it were to insist upon an indefinite occupation, you might well see it split apart.


Quite. Iirc President Grant himself observed in 1876 that the sending of troops to Mississippi, even if it enabled the Republicans to carry that state (which was highly doubtful) would be futile if it led to their losing Ohio.

In the event, they carried Ohio , but by only a single percentage point. Further controversy about interventions in the South would probably have delivered it to Tilden, in which case we'd never have heard about those famously disputed Southern States, as Ohio had more electoral votes than all three of them put together.
 
Top