How radical can reconstruction get?
- Thread starter Orko
- Start date
I'm not going to count the seizure of their slaves/"human livestock," emancipation was a given.
I'm quite sure some land was taken. Though, without slaves it's not like the landowning class knew how to farm anyways, so it's not like they got much use for it.
And what does censorship have to do with making it off easy?
Land was taken, for back taxes. A Northerner who didn't pay his taxes for years could have his land seized as well. Censorship doesn't allow you to say what you really feel. It isn't imprisonment but it is still a punishment when you are normally allowed to do so.
Yeah... no not really. Direct taxes wasn't a thing, only tariffs were, so that argument holds no water. Don't get me wrong, the South (slavery) was on the on wrong side of the war (vs Emancipation), but this argument holds no water. Calling it tribute for treason would be more accurate
I still say that any region that got off for no imprisonment and no tribute but censorship is still getting it off very easy for treason. Tribute is a bit less easy, but no one was imprisoned.
I don't know why I'm here. I made my first point when I saw the OP and my mind is on a nuclear reactor. Maybe I have OCD?
Kinda like Santa Anna and Texas, or George III and The ARW, or Napoleon and his wars, Kaiser Wilhelm and the Great War, The Boers and their war, France and the 7 years war, etc. The problem with history is that when we tend to make assumptions about our own abilities and our opponents, as you say, with the South prior to the Civil War, or the United States and Viet Nam, reality tends to come knocking. That's why nations and peoples tend to lose war, or as sometimes happen, win the war and then lose the peace.
George III could have won the ARW. Saratoga was the product of British idiocy instead of American ingenuity.
Germany had 2 options going into WW1, abandon the alliance and end up a pariah (for breaking their word) or fight. They actually had a shot at winning early (not due to the alleged ingenuity of the Schlieffen plan, but due to French tactical stupidity that made a lot of the questionable assumptions suddenly true).
Napoleon could have actually stayed in power. There are many ways to do it, but one doesn't involve the battlefield or luck. Tarylland thought the Hapsburgs could be a counterweight to France enemies, with them being Catholic and all. But Napoleon humiliated them instead of letting them off easy.
The South in the ACW had no practical chances of winning without outside help.
Germany had 2 options going into WW1, abandon the alliance and end up a pariah (for breaking their word) or fight. They actually had a shot at winning early (not due to the alleged ingenuity of the Schlieffen plan, but due to French tactical stupidity that made a lot of the questionable assumptions suddenly true).
Napoleon could have actually stayed in power. There are many ways to do it, but one doesn't involve the battlefield or luck. Tarylland thought the Hapsburgs could be a counterweight to France enemies, with them being Catholic and all. But Napoleon humiliated them instead of letting them off easy.
The South in the ACW had no practical chances of winning without outside help.
@Alex Zetsu regarding the issue of back taxes, not to quibble with either of you, but we're not talking federal taxes here. We're talking about county and state taxes. Documentation is a little thin, but as I understand it, what at times happened was the state government would in 1865-1870ish, assess a tax and apply the rate retroactively, covering back years. It was by this action that some of those Tax lien sales happened.
That's the beauty of hindsight. Lincoln would have been correct had he said of the South, "They misunderestimated me."
Texas won mainly because Mexico was a complete backwater and Santa Anna was a compete bozo, without France the US would have lost the ARW, Napoleon I give you but part of it was that the French government was seen by a lot of the average European citizen was seen as superior to the Ancient Regimes they were fighting for so a lot of the soldiery didn't try too hard, the Kaiser was fighting Great Britain, France, Russia and eventually the US with only Austria Hungry and the Ottoman Empire as allies, the Boers eventually lost, I don't know enough about the 7 years war to really comment on it.
Yep, basically you now owed the Unionist State Government the taxes you didn't pay during the ACW.
The take-away is this:
Hubris blinds the best of us along with the worst of us, at times. So much truth is wrapped up in the expression, "Those whom the gods would destroy they first make crazy."
Other way around.
I like Eisenhower overall, but here he was wrong.
Lee is not a man to be admired. He was a slavery just like virtually every other Confederate leader. His army enslaved free blacks during the invasions of the north, which is a crime I sincerely hope he was tossed into a special pit of hell for.
Eisenhower grew up in an era when the Lost Causers had effectively rewritten history to pretend they weren't the evil bastards they actually were. This is something we have only started to overturn.
His letter is a profound statement of ignorance about history and should not be held up as a positive document.
AS a person, Lee had many fine qualities. As a public person, not so much. He saw his first loyalty to the state of Virginia, NOT the United States, which is why he was on the fence until Virginia seceded and then resigned. While he may have personally seen slavery as an evil, he was not so ignorant as to fail to understand that the "right" that created the CSA was slavery - there were other issues but slavery and its preservation (and extension) was the overriding issue. In terms of constitutional interpretation, the Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation, precisely to give primacy to the federal government, leaving to the states those powers not given to the federal government. Secession was not mentioned at all, the rationale behind secession was "we decided to join so we can decide to leave". Whatever that was it wasn't a "constitutional" argument.
Reconstruction could have been much worse. Treason trials for senior CSA government officials and general officers. Lifetime disenfranchisement for any CSA government official (state or national) above a certain level - the local mayor or postmaster gets off, state legislators, high bureau officials disenfranchised. Likewise officers in the CS military disenfranchised, enlisted not. Confiscations of land and money of slave owners for redistribution or paying for things like housing and schools for Freedmen. Making state constitutions protecting the franchise for Freedmen, and preventing segregation a requirement for readmission. Most of these were suggested at one time or another, and could have been easily imposed. While they might have increased white resentment (although not sure how much that would have been possible) some of these could have been beneficial. BY putting penalties political and financial on the planter class and their allies, who were the driving force behind secession, much of their power is gone - yet none of these penalties directly hurt the yeoman farmer, physician, or artisan in the white south. The reality was that most of those who were political/social elite/wealthy before the ACW regained or retained those positions in the post war period. By removing their political influence, and their ability to influence things through money will allow the possibility of a better reconstruction.
It is worth noting that only about 25% of southern households owned slaves, and most of the slave owners owned few. While emancipation represented a significant financial loss to slave owners, as well as disruption of their labor force (later recovered through labor contracts and sharecropping), the 75% of southern households who did not own slaves suffered no direct loss due to emancipation. It is worth noting that many in the CS political upper class bruited about the possibility of reinstating property requirements for the franchise which would disenfranchise many whites - but this would be OK because they would still be above blacks on the ladder permanently. The scenario posited here could allow for some commonality of interest between freedmen and non-elite whites in the south to develop. Not kumbaya making s'mores, but better than OTL.
Reconstruction could have been much worse. Treason trials for senior CSA government officials and general officers. Lifetime disenfranchisement for any CSA government official (state or national) above a certain level - the local mayor or postmaster gets off, state legislators, high bureau officials disenfranchised. Likewise officers in the CS military disenfranchised, enlisted not. Confiscations of land and money of slave owners for redistribution or paying for things like housing and schools for Freedmen. Making state constitutions protecting the franchise for Freedmen, and preventing segregation a requirement for readmission. Most of these were suggested at one time or another, and could have been easily imposed. While they might have increased white resentment (although not sure how much that would have been possible) some of these could have been beneficial. BY putting penalties political and financial on the planter class and their allies, who were the driving force behind secession, much of their power is gone - yet none of these penalties directly hurt the yeoman farmer, physician, or artisan in the white south. The reality was that most of those who were political/social elite/wealthy before the ACW regained or retained those positions in the post war period. By removing their political influence, and their ability to influence things through money will allow the possibility of a better reconstruction.
It is worth noting that only about 25% of southern households owned slaves, and most of the slave owners owned few. While emancipation represented a significant financial loss to slave owners, as well as disruption of their labor force (later recovered through labor contracts and sharecropping), the 75% of southern households who did not own slaves suffered no direct loss due to emancipation. It is worth noting that many in the CS political upper class bruited about the possibility of reinstating property requirements for the franchise which would disenfranchise many whites - but this would be OK because they would still be above blacks on the ladder permanently. The scenario posited here could allow for some commonality of interest between freedmen and non-elite whites in the south to develop. Not kumbaya making s'mores, but better than OTL.
@wcv215; You're entitled to your opinion.
The thing is, viewing history through a monochromatic lens, or a binary view of 1 and 0 robs us of the ability to see beyond our own personal sacred cows. While I see slavery as absolutely evil, I am not blind to the other evils of the 19th century or even the evils that exist today, nor do I believe that in the annals of the last few centuries slavery is the ultimate evil. I reserve that for murder and genocide. If you don't agree with me about that, I'm ok. My worldview can handle others' dissent. The binary view of the world, which heavily influences today's 21st century view of our own history, blinds us to our own frailties and failures, of which there are many. For these reasons, Eisenhower's view is transcendent. As a society we gain far more from Eisenhower's enlightened view than by stridently demanding strict adherence to what I see as pernicious revisionism.
Circling back to the OP, the problem that I take with these posts about Reconstruction not being harsh enough is that these threads frequently cross the line from hatred of slavery, which I truly believe is shared by every single one of us, to hatred of Southerners today, based upon a false stereotype. It's probably why I spend too much time on these types of threads. The history of the United States, even the South, isn't one limiting us to a monochrome view. Rather it is a kaleidoscope of hues and that fact, IMO, gets lost in the noise.
The thing is, viewing history through a monochromatic lens, or a binary view of 1 and 0 robs us of the ability to see beyond our own personal sacred cows. While I see slavery as absolutely evil, I am not blind to the other evils of the 19th century or even the evils that exist today, nor do I believe that in the annals of the last few centuries slavery is the ultimate evil. I reserve that for murder and genocide. If you don't agree with me about that, I'm ok. My worldview can handle others' dissent. The binary view of the world, which heavily influences today's 21st century view of our own history, blinds us to our own frailties and failures, of which there are many. For these reasons, Eisenhower's view is transcendent. As a society we gain far more from Eisenhower's enlightened view than by stridently demanding strict adherence to what I see as pernicious revisionism.
Circling back to the OP, the problem that I take with these posts about Reconstruction not being harsh enough is that these threads frequently cross the line from hatred of slavery, which I truly believe is shared by every single one of us, to hatred of Southerners today, based upon a false stereotype. It's probably why I spend too much time on these types of threads. The history of the United States, even the South, isn't one limiting us to a monochrome view. Rather it is a kaleidoscope of hues and that fact, IMO, gets lost in the noise.
But why should anybody bother?
It soon became clear that the South (including most planters) had accepted reunion and were most unlikely to make any further attempts at secession. That being so, what need was there to exclude them form power? The Union could be successfully restored without doing so.
GeographyDude
Gone Fishin'
I respectfully disagree. I think it's pretty likely that there were monopolies in the 1860s (railroads chief of all) that regardless of whether they should be, for various de facto reasons were plenty strong enough.
And that you could have made friends with farmers by standing up to them.
Last edited:
GeographyDude
Gone Fishin'
Congress was out of session when Lincoln was assassinated on April 14, 1865, and bizarrely did not reconvene till December 1865 ? ! ?
https://books.google.com/books?id=G...due to reconvene until December 1865"&f=false
I think it's an out-and-out abdication of responsibility.
and/or the realities of a citizen legislature where the elected officials, even when most were considerably richer than average, had farms and businesses to attend to , and/or war weariness, and/or hope upon hope and bare hope and maybe not even that, that the Army primarily, and the federal bureaucracy, and a War Democrat like Andrew Johnson will be able to get it done without them.
I never said slavery was the greatest evil in human history. But that doesn't change the fact it was still evil. Being worthy of any kind of admiration requires the person to actually make a positive contribution. Lincoln prosecuted Indian Wars in his time as president, which IS evil, but he also put his efforts to defeating the south and ending slavery. Grant was too trusting and again prosecuted the Indian Wars, but again he made positive contributions to the country. This is true of most people throughout history.
Lee was nothing but a traitor who actively CHOSE to take the side of slavers. He should have been shot when the war was over, along with most of the Confederate leaders. He is worthy of no admiration in any form. Eisenhower's view is whitewashing history.