How would you punish the rebel leadership after the American Civil War

[TastySpam]

Absolutely none at all, provided they cooperate with the creation of the new political order.

This would be more probation than a slap on the wrist, since this would be combined with a zero tolerance policy towards postwar mischief (think the White Leagues). And there was a lot of that, admittedly.

 

[Bookmark1995]

Absolutely none at all, provided they cooperate with the creation of the new political order.

This would be more probation than a slap on the wrist, since this would be combined with a zero tolerance policy towards postwar mischief (think the White Leagues). And there was a lot of that, admittedly.

Was there ever a scenario where the Northern Republicans could've put more effort into stopping those militias, or is it inevitable they would just give up on protecting the rights of black Americans?

 

[BELFAST]

The Confederates as "misunderstood heroes" does make some sense that way...

But the idea of a rich asshole who does human trafficking becoming a hero sounds ridiculous.

History taught in schools is full of stuff like that. History often is just propaganda about the past.
You can make anyone in history a saint or a sinner depending on the needs of the day and the target audience.

 

[TastySpam]

Was there ever a scenario where the Northern Republicans could've put more effort into stopping those militias, or is it inevitable they would just give up on protecting the rights of black Americans?

I mean, they did crush those militias for the most part. The KKK Act more or less destroyed the first KKK.

One thing I've heard in politics recently is people mocking the "Green Lantern" theory of foreign politics. That you can just succeed in nationbuilding as long as you have the "will to do so." I don't think it's that simple, in neither Afghanistan or Alabama.

To be quite honest, I think most northern political elites saw what success in the South would actually look like (biracial populist governments) and pretty much concluded Jim Crow was preferable, a national consensus between Northern and Southern political elites that lasted for generations.

 

[ByzantineMan]

Man, people really want to have their cake and eat it too in this thread. Here's something the Union didn't want: succession to be seen as something you could do. What would make it seem like you can opt out of the Union? Being treated like a foreign country and occupied as such. Hanging any number of Confederate officials will not actually solve any problems for the newly re-unified United States and almost certainly make things worse. Many today almost seem more spiteful towards the Confederacy than even the Radical Republicans were back then!

And I don't care if the OP said you could be anachronistic. It still doesn't make sense to bring up the Nuremburg trials to somehow justify similar proceedings happening 60+ years before. OP starts the thread but we aren't 100% beholden to the rules set out. Would it be acceptable to accept hearsay or shoddy sources just because OP says so? I can't believe I've seen people asking for international deliberation in an alt-history trial against Southern leaders. Even in this more bloodthirsty reality, the United States doesn't NEED France or England's support in handling their own domestic affairs. To bring them in puts the US in a rung-down position.

 

[Admiral Spaun]

Many today almost seem more spiteful towards the Confederacy than even the Radical Republicans were back then!

That's probably because most people today have a better appreciation for the monstrous nature of the Confederacy than people in the 1860s. Now, it is universally recognized that white supremacy and slavery are morally wrong. Back then.... not so much.

 

[ByzantineMan]

That's probably because most people today have a better appreciation for the monstrous nature of the Confederacy than people in the 1860s. Now, it is universally recognized that white supremacy and slavery are morally wrong. Back then.... not so much.

Accounts for some but not nearly all of the spite. The people making decisions then actually observed all of the awful things we are discussing in this thread and didn't go as far as many would have wanted to.

 

[Hugh Third of Five]

Man, people really want to have their cake and eat it too in this thread. Here's something the Union didn't want: succession to be seen as something you could do. What would make it seem like you can opt out of the Union? Being treated like a foreign country and occupied as such. Hanging any number of Confederate officials will not actually solve any problems for the newly re-unified United States and almost certainly make things worse. Many today almost seem more spiteful towards the Confederacy than even the Radical Republicans were back then!

And I don't care if the OP said you could be anachronistic. It still doesn't make sense to bring up the Nuremburg trials to somehow justify similar proceedings happening 60+ years before. OP starts the thread but we aren't 100% beholden to the rules set out. Would it be acceptable to accept hearsay or shoddy sources just because OP says so? I can't believe I've seen people asking for international deliberation in an alt-history trial against Southern leaders. Even in this more bloodthirsty reality, the United States doesn't NEED France or England's support in handling their own domestic affairs. To bring them in puts the US in a rung-down position.

The Nuremburg trials would be anachronistic, but treason was absolutely a capital crime by the standards of the time as was the treatment of prisoners at Andersonville. Now executing all of the confederates wasn't going to happen, but executing their leadership was absolutely plausible. As for bitterness towards the confederacy, most of the "punishment," meted out by the Radical Republicans just amounted to laws trying to ensure that black people were treated decently. We can go over the various reasons why it didn't work and why the North didn't push it longer and harder, but by no measure were the Confederates victims nor would somehow giving Sumner and Stevens their way with regards to the treatment of the freedmen have made the Confederates into victims.

 

[BELFAST]

Man, people really want to have their cake and eat it too in this thread. Here's something the Union didn't want: succession to be seen as something you could do. What would make it seem like you can opt out of the Union? Being treated like a foreign country and occupied as such. Hanging any number of Confederate officials will not actually solve any problems for the newly re-unified United States and almost certainly make things worse. Many today almost seem more spiteful towards the Confederacy than even the Radical Republicans were back then!

And I don't care if the OP said you could be anachronistic. It still doesn't make sense to bring up the Nuremburg trials to somehow justify similar proceedings happening 60+ years before. OP starts the thread but we aren't 100% beholden to the rules set out. Would it be acceptable to accept hearsay or shoddy sources just because OP says so? I can't believe I've seen people asking for international deliberation in an alt-history trial against Southern leaders. Even in this more bloodthirsty reality, the United States doesn't NEED France or England's support in handling their own domestic affairs. To bring them in puts the US in a rung-down position.

Well said.
The only thing worse than a bad loser is a bad winner.
The Union won and achieved all their wartime goals and no one has ever tried to leave the union again.
They even got a ruling from the supreme court saying no states could legally leave the union.
The CSA has been consigned to the dust bin of history along with national socialism, communism and the empires of the European imperialists etc.
They only exist now in works of fiction and movies and as the subject of alternative history TLs.
The confederates like many losing sides in history had to cheek to rewrite their own history and not leave it to the winners to rewrite history and that is something that many nowadays cannot stand.

 

[BELFAST]

The Nuremburg trials would be anachronistic, but treason was absolutely a capital crime by the standards of the time as was the treatment of prisoners at Andersonville. Now executing all of the confederates wasn't going to happen, but executing their leadership was absolutely plausible. As for bitterness towards the confederacy, most of the "punishment," meted out by the Radical Republicans just amounted to laws trying to ensure that black people were treated decently. We can go over the various reasons why it didn't work and why the North didn't push it longer and harder, but by no measure were the Confederates victims nor would somehow giving Sumner and Stevens their way with regards to the treatment of the freedmen have made the Confederates into victims.

It would not have made them into victims. But they would be able to portray themselves as victims.
You might have another armed rebellion in the future or at least have a county never reunites in anything but name.
edit removed part of post intended for another TL.

 

[ByzantineMan]

The Nuremburg trials would be anachronistic, but treason was absolutely a capital crime by the standards of the time as was the treatment of prisoners at Andersonville. Now executing all of the confederates wasn't going to happen, but executing their leadership was absolutely plausible. As for bitterness towards the confederacy, most of the "punishment," meted out by the Radical Republicans just amounted to laws trying to ensure that black people were treated decently. We can go over the various reasons why it didn't work and why the North didn't push it longer and harder, but by no measure were the Confederates victims nor would somehow giving Sumner and Stevens their way with regards to the treatment of the freedmen have made the Confederates into victims.

It seems clear now that any take regarding the Confederacy that isn't "I hate the confederates and wished they all died horrible deaths" is seen as "victimizing" them. They aren't victims, they brought it on themselves, yadda yadda yadda, they're bad obviously, you are instantly a good person for opposing them.

Even getting the Confederates on treason isn't a sure shot. Getting someone on treason is a very specific legal procedure that was (and still is) rarely used. You would have to try Jefferson Davis or Lee or any confederate in the state in which they committed the crime, in this case Virginia. You would ALSO need to pick a jury from that state. So you put Davis on trial, and a jury of Virginians wouldn't find him guilty. Rather large PR win for him. Or, you put him on trial but specifically sculpt a set of jurors to find him guilty, a total kangaroo court that would very clearly be seen as northern aggression. Furthermore whether or not he or others committed treason largely hinged upon the constitutionality of succession from the union, which wasn't settled until a few years after the Civil War with the "Texas v. White" decision. And by that time, things had simmered down enough that it wasn't even worth pursuing.

 

[Mikestone8]

s had been taken. I mean, they did crush those militias for the most part. The KKK Act more or less destroyed the first KKK.

Was it really destroyed or did it just lie low for a while before resuming under other names?

After all, in 1871/2 it had good reason to keep a low profile. Congress was soon to vote on whether to continue the Freedman's Bureau (it didn't) and whether to lift the disabilities imposed on ex-Rebs by Sec 3 of the 14th Amendment (it did). Had I been a Klansman then, I too would have kept my head down at least until those votes had been taken.

 

[Bookmark1995]

Man, people really want to have their cake and eat it too in this thread. Here's something the Union didn't want: succession to be seen as something you could do. What would make it seem like you can opt out of the Union? Being treated like a foreign country and occupied as such. Hanging any number of Confederate officials will not actually solve any problems for the newly re-unified United States and almost certainly make things worse. Many today almost seem more spiteful towards the Confederacy than even the Radical Republicans were back then!

And I don't care if the OP said you could be anachronistic. It still doesn't make sense to bring up the Nuremburg trials to somehow justify similar proceedings happening 60+ years before. OP starts the thread but we aren't 100% beholden to the rules set out. Would it be acceptable to accept hearsay or shoddy sources just because OP says so? I can't believe I've seen people asking for international deliberation in an alt-history trial against Southern leaders. Even in this more bloodthirsty reality, the United States doesn't NEED France or England's support in handling their own domestic affairs. To bring them in puts the US in a rung-down position.

The only reason why the Nuremberg trials occured was because the Nazis actions were THAT horrible.

Remember that before World War I, war and militarism weren't at all seen as bad things by the vast majority of the population, and war crimes were seen as "shit happens." The crack in that world view had been the horrors of the trenches and the Armenian genocide.

World War II and its terror had been the final act in the collapse of the old view of war.

So yeah, Nuremberg style judgements are not going to happen.

 

[jmc247]

Was it really destroyed or did it just lie low for a while before resuming under other names?

After all, in 1871/2 it had good reason to keep a low profile. Congress was soon to vote on whether to continue the Freedman's Bureau (it didn't) and whether to lift the disabilities imposed on ex-Rebs by Sec 3 of the 14th Amendment (it did). Had I been a Klansman then, I too would have kept my head down at least until those votes had been taken.

Forrest had an influence on post war poor southern white democrats while Wade Hampton and a few others influenced elite southern democrats in terms of their policy direction. The South's brass subdivided itself almost naturally into roles in dealing with the post war order. Longstreet and Mosby ended up the good cop dealing with the Republicans. Forrest and Hampton the bad cops. Lee surrounded himself with a college tried to stay separate from and above politics which was a role onto itself. Jubal Early continued to fight with his pen instead of sword.

The biggest way the 1865 federal government could have influenced these figures much more effectively within its actual means was something akin to the Blair plan being enacted immediately post war which would have brought the southern troops under Washington's control and moved them to Texas along with the northern troops before they enforce the Monroe Doctrine and then are demobilized. It would have given Washington some time to plan out what they wanted to do in terms of reconstruction with no real resistance for a period.

By the time the major newspapers such as The New York Harald started their pushing for intervention in Mexico again around mid to late May/June of 1865 in their interviews with Lee and others emotional collapse and PTSD was settling in.

Spoiler

 

[Don Corleone]

Furthermore whether or not he or others committed treason largely hinged upon the constitutionality of succession from the union, which wasn't settled until a few years after the Civil War with the "Texas v. White" decision. And by that time, things had simmered down enough that it wasn't even worth pursuing.

That's one reason Davis was never tried. They couldn't prove secession was illegal.

Which is why Lincoln wanted him to flee the country.

 

[Bookmark1995]

With hindsight of history, this would be my plan for punishment:

1. A lifetime ban on politics in exchange for amnesty.

2. Taking some land out west and giving it to freedman in order to create an upwardly mobile black American class.

3. Breaking up the plantation owner's holdings and giving it to yeoman to cultivate yeoman loyalty for the GOP.

 

[Mikestone8]

A lifetime ban on politics in exchange for amnesty.

Which Congress would have rescinded by 1872 at latest, as the did the penalties of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

. Breaking up the plantation owner's holdings and giving it to yeoman to cultivate yeoman loyalty for the GOP.

So what happpens when the original owner dies and the land reverts to his heirs, as by the Cobstitution it will.

 

[Admiral Spaun]

So what happpens when the original owner dies and the land reverts to his heirs, as by the Cobstitution it will.

His heirs would own it. That's the entire point of breaking up the land monopoly by the planters.

 

[Mikestone8]

His heirs would own it. That's the entire point of breaking up the land monopoly by the planters.

That's the heirs of the *planter* it was taken from.

 

[Admiral Spaun]

Furthermore whether or not he or others committed treason largely hinged upon the constitutionality of succession from the union, which wasn't settled until a few years after the Civil War with the "Texas v. White" decision. And by that time, things had simmered down enough that it wasn't even worth pursuing.

Wether or not he committed treason depends on 1. If he waged war against the United States and 2. If he gave aid or comfort to the enemies of the United States. Oh wait, the Confederacy did both those things. Davis and co. engaged in acts that entirely fell within John Marshall's definition of treason (written during the Burr case).
From the National Constitution Center website on the topic of treason "It was not enough, Chief Justice John Marshall’s opinion emphasized, merely to conspire “to subvert by force the government of our country” by recruiting troops, procuring maps, and drawing up plans. Conspiring to levy war was distinct from actually levying war. Rather, a person could be convicted of treason for levying war only if there was an “actual assemblage of men for the purpose of executing a treasonable design.”