Under OTL conditions (i.e. the war ends in 1865 and shortly after Lincoln is assassinated, and Grant is elected in 1868) what are the most radical measures the Republicans can impose on the South following the civil war? IIRC some radical republicans proposed expropriating ex-slaveowners' properties and distributing the land among the freedmen. I was wondering whether something like that could ever come to pass. Also, how harsh could they get towards ex-confederates? Is permanent revocation of citizenship on the table? How about exile?
How radical can reconstruction get?
- Thread starter Orko
- Start date
Indeed, had the Southerners swallowed their pride and ratified the 14th Amendment, would Freedmen even have gained the vote?
"The Devil" is right. Once it became clear that the South had re-accepted the Union, and there was no danger of a second attempt at rebellion, what reason was there to keep it going at all?
The ex confederates that did the best under reconstruction were the ones who made peace the fastest with the Republicans. A quick look at James Longstreet shows that although he rather didn't get many Christmas cards during reconstruction from his fellow ex-confederates, he did very well for himself as a Republican during Reconstruction.
Many plantation owners lost their all or parts of their property through tax liens during the reconstruction. When the tax man cometh and declares six years of back taxes, it was thinly veiled effort to seize some or all of the property.
There's an inherent danger in applying a 21st century view to our ancestors' 19th century world.
Rather than belabor endlessly over a reasoned response to the OP's postulation, I'll let someone far more gifted than me provide a better counter argument to the desire to see a harsher reconstruction:
August 9, 1960
Dear Dr. Scott:
Respecting your August 1 inquiry calling attention to my often expressed admiration for General Robert E. Lee, I would say, first, that we need to understand that at the time of the War between the States the issue of secession had remained unresolved for more than 70 years. Men of probity, character, public standing and unquestioned loyalty, both North and South, had disagreed over this issue as a matter of principle from the day our Constitution was adopted.
General Robert E. Lee was, in my estimation, one of the supremely gifted men produced by our Nation. He believed unswervingly in the Constitutional validity of his cause which until 1865 was still an arguable question in America; he was a poised and inspiring leader, true to the high trust reposed in him by millions of his fellow citizens; he was thoughtful yet demanding of his officers and men, forbearing with captured enemies but ingenious, unrelenting and personally courageous in battle, and never disheartened by a reverse or obstacle. Through all his many trials, he remained selfless almost to a fault and unfailing in his faith in God. Taken altogether, he was noble as a leader and as a man, and unsullied as I read the pages of our history.
From deep conviction, I simply say this: a nation of men of Lee’s calibre would be unconquerable in spirit and soul. Indeed, to the degree that present-day American youth will strive to emulate his rare qualities, including his devotion to this land as revealed in his painstaking efforts to help heal the Nation’s wounds once the bitter struggle was over, we, in our own time of danger in a divided world, will be strengthened and our love of freedom sustained.
Such are the reasons that I proudly display the picture of this great American on my office wall.
Sincerely,
Dwight D. Eisenhower
GeographyDude
Gone Fishin'
I don't think it's talked about near enough, but one of the most radical measures which could benefit both black and white low- and middle-income persons is to break the quasi-monopolies holding down farmers.
In a certain time period, this was grain elevator operators and railroads. I'm not sure what it was in the 1860s.
There wasn't enough consolidated manufacturing in the South in the antebellum period to really worry about true monopolies, unlike the North, where monopolies were on the rise.
I'm going to exclude Railroads from consideration, given the very high cost, state involvement and lack of ubiquity of the rail.
Cotton Gens and other Mills were about as close to monopolies as you'd find in the pre-war South. Those monopolies stretched out their hands no further than a wagon could easily travel in a day. Also, the barrier to entry was, by the standards of the day, low.
But to circle back to the issue of post war years, much of the pillars of trade, like mills and cotton gens was transferred to scalawags and carpetbaggers, when they traded hands. Also, the story of how several million poor blacks and whites in the South were trapped by the sharecropping system that dominated the impoverished economic system of the next 40-50 years can't be told without discussing the role of Carpetbaggers, who operated frequently with the tacit approval of either the military governors or Republican statehouses that rules through the end of Reconstruction.
Former slaves plainly knew how to raise and harvest cotton. in otl a factor in the appalling share cropper system was that the landowners had very little capital, they could only make a living by extreme exploitation. Giving land to former slaves means that land and labour are owned by the same people.
The key thing was to do it in the summer of 1865.
The Southern leadership could have been expropriated and exiled as a condition for non prosecution for treason
The key thing was to do it in the summer of 1865.
The Southern leadership could have been expropriated and exiled as a condition for non prosecution for treason
Why bother? As drewmc2001 already noted, plenty of land was forfeited through tax default etc, and could presumably have been handed out to Freedmen had anyone particularly wanted to. But even the Radical state governments post-1867 showed little inclination to do so. So no need to expropriate anyone.
Also please keep in mind that the "Radical" Congress took till 1867 to come out for giving Freedmen even the vote, never mind confiscating property for their benefit. Such a thing happening in 1865 is taking us into ASB country.
You ask as if there was simply one answer. The truth of the matter is that the answer is complex because history can't be easily distilled to a simple answer. Alt history seeks simple answers, seldom is history kind to our request.
Here's a book, well sourced, that explores the answer in detail:
https://www.amazon.com/New-Masters-...823218937/ref=mt_hardcover?_encoding=UTF8&me=
But in a nutshell, when plantations went up on the tax lien auction block, the typical purchasers were Northern investors.
But some lands also changed hands through the administration of the freedman's bureaus. I don't know what percentage, although I doubt it would exceed even 10% of the arable land of the existing plantations.
Some of those plantations stayed in the planter class's hands, and was frequently leased to Northern business interests. Sharecropping grew to dominate the cotton production of the south by 1868, whether the economic interests were pushed by ex-confederates, landed Northerners, or Northerners leasing the land.
There is an issue seldom explored in our quest to remake the past in our own image in alt-history. Today we think of the 1%-ers in our culture as privileged and elite. And we can make a strong case for that, but for every Nelson Rockefeller, with his silver spoon and privileged life, There's a Sam Walton or Steve Jobs. There are people, who are smarter, sharper, quicker, braver and less risk adverse, who can actually turn that sow's ear into a silk purse. I suppose I would argue that the north had more of these 1% types than the south, but to think that there were no ex-confederates who fit that criteria is baseless. My point with this is that no matter how one slices or dices reconstruction, you're going to have the best (defined as: smarter, sharper, quicker, braver and less risk adverse) and brightest come out on top. No amount of hand-waving is going to make that not true. In just about any version of Reconstruction, you're going to have a certain percentage of southerners fall into that category. Like Sam Walton, Bill Gates or John Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie, they will find ways to make themselves indispensable to powerbrokers or in some cases become the powerbrokers.
Understanding why the OP's desired end is problematic its worth reading this little article from Wikipedia. At a minimum, it's illustrative.
History Learner
Banned
The Planter class pretty much faded from power by the 1890s anyway. What happened after? The situation got worse for the Freedmen. This is why I'm always confused at the suggestion that a Black-Yeoman White alliance could be forged, despite the fact said yeoman produced about 90% of the Confederate Army and were bitterly opposed to any racial equality measures.
Because blacks and yeoman whites did form alliances in places like North Carolina, where a Populist-Republican coalition led by Marion Butler won control.
The lesson of today, kids, is don't get into a war you can't win.
By historic standards the South got off EASY for its treason. Almost no one was executed, almost no one was imprisoned, there was little censorship after the war, tribute wasn't levied.The lesson of today, kids, is don't get into a war you can't win.
Maybe Eisenhower knew something that has been lost today.
August 9, 1960
Dear Dr. Scott:
Respecting your August 1 inquiry calling attention to my often expressed admiration for General Robert E. Lee, I would say, first, that we need to understand that at the time of the War between the States the issue of secession had remained unresolved for more than 70 years. Men of probity, character, public standing and unquestioned loyalty, both North and South, had disagreed over this issue as a matter of principle from the day our Constitution was adopted.
General Robert E. Lee was, in my estimation, one of the supremely gifted men produced by our Nation. He believed unswervingly in the Constitutional validity of his cause which until 1865 was still an arguable question in America; he was a poised and inspiring leader, true to the high trust reposed in him by millions of his fellow citizens; he was thoughtful yet demanding of his officers and men, forbearing with captured enemies but ingenious, unrelenting and personally courageous in battle, and never disheartened by a reverse or obstacle. Through all his many trials, he remained selfless almost to a fault and unfailing in his faith in God. Taken altogether, he was noble as a leader and as a man, and unsullied as I read the pages of our history.
From deep conviction, I simply say this: a nation of men of Lee’s calibre would be unconquerable in spirit and soul. Indeed, to the degree that present-day American youth will strive to emulate his rare qualities, including his devotion to this land as revealed in his painstaking efforts to help heal the Nation’s wounds once the bitter struggle was over, we, in our own time of danger in a divided world, will be strengthened and our love of freedom sustained.
Such are the reasons that I proudly display the picture of this great American on my office wall.
Sincerely,
Dwight D. Eisenhower
"The optimist says we live in the best
Most of whom made little or no money. The big problem the South had after the war wasn't the handful of carpet baggers many of whom put in far more money than they took out. The main problems is that so many of its military age men were dead, what few factories the South had were mostly destroyed, Sherman's troops made "Sherman's Neckties" of a lot of the Southern rails, plantations were burned to the ground. In short the South was stupid enough to start a war with an area that had 3X its population and 10X its industry with over a third of its population in chains and 10% of its White population sympathetic enough to the enemy to join it.
Last edited:
I read it the first time, it is still stupid to get into a war you can't win.
The lesson of today, kids, is don't get into a war you can't win.
Tribute was levied, but why would censorship be considered punishment? Suppose no one was imprisoned and tribute wasn't levied and the North took control of the mass media. That's still easy for treason. Although, to be honest, given the nation's very founding, the South had a reasonable argument they weren't committing treason.
Even more of the 1% are small time business owners, doctors, lawyers, real estate brokers, and upper middle management . For every Bill Gates there are 100 or more Dr. Stevens. It is the top 1% not the top 0.0001%!