Is a successful Reconstruction ASB?

Another factor woudl be changing juries. Excluding anyone who had been involved in the treasonous rebellion and allowing former slaves

And that means something like 2/3rds of the white male population is disqualified including the 14 year old boys who were fighting at the end who are now 18 and 20. They have brothers and cousins who are younger who will hate to see this and be alienated. Basically they'll hate you for a longer time and have more people signing up for the Klan.

Basically, this goes too far and alienates too many people. It also illustrates that Reconstruction was hard.

Kill Johnson in April 1865, not Lincoln. That is step one and your PoD.
 
Kill Johnson in April 1865, not Lincoln. That is step one and your PoD.

If Lincoln lives, Johnson is not important enough to be worth killing.

Even if Lincoln dies in office around 1866/7, his reconstruction programme - whatever that is - will be too far along for Johnson to reverse it.
 
Arguing that the US government did not believe in property redistribution immediately after it engaged in the largest de-commodification of property (in persons, specifically) in history until 1917 seems logically inconsistent. Especially when that same government was simultaneously engaging in land redistribution with conquered indigenous land through the Homestead Act.

I agree though that to get a real Reconstruction you need to permanently destroy the planter class. Ironically, this might be better done with a longer Civil War rather than a shorter one. I’m not sure how much longer the war can go - ‘66? ‘67? - but every burned down plantation and southern city strengthens the position of the Union and the formerly enslaved peoples compared to the planter class.

If you mean 'redistribution as liberation' then the largest property redistribution before 1917 still occurred in Russia in 1861 when Tsar Alexander emancipated the roughly 23 million serfs and set up the whole convoluted land and repayment scheme which would partially help push it towards the revolution in 1917.

But to conflate the liberation of either serfs or slaves with property redistribution (which would be giving them to someone else) is a bit icky of a idea. The slaves were liberated as individuals, not given to the care of someone else as property. The Federal Government doesn't really have the right or the machinery to simply begin seizing and redistributing vast tracts of land in the South, and giving it that right is a massive problem for the not yet 100 year old American Republic. There's a vast difference between displacing peoples the government views as uncivilized savages vs ostensibly citizens of your own nation.
 
The thing is that the US constitution rightly prevents ex post facto laws even though holding slaves was clearly immoral. However treason, though narrowly defined, clearly covered the Planter class
 
However treason, though narrowly defined, clearly covered the Planter class

A "class" does not have legal or constitutional collective accountability in a liberal democracy. A social class only does perhaps in Marxist state constitutions. Perhaps not even there but just in the bylaws of Marxist parties.
 
The government would need to get rid of the Southern upper class(exile generals and upper officals) and issue land reform to divide their land among the former slaves and poor or homeless whites. Keep laws that forbid confederates officials and supporters from voting and running for office. Use Christian churchs to promote peace between blacks and whites. Then they would need to either give autonomy to black majority areas or work to put together some power sharing scheme among the whites and the blacks. Either that or send the a portion of the Black population out west to fight the natives and settles the land or deport them to Liberia. Maybe both.

What incentive would any administration have to do any of this?

All the North really wanted was a South which wouldn't rebel again, and they could get that without any of the above.
 
What incentive would any administration have to do any of this?

All the North really wanted was a South which wouldn't rebel again, and they could get that without any of the above.
1. I could see OTL government doing the Liberia solution.
2. The rest could have happened if Andrew Johnson was killed with Lincoln and someone else became president.
 
Last edited:
2. The rest could have happened if Andrew Johnson was killed with Lincoln and someone else became president.

To be blunt, top leadership doesn't matter - because even if you get the most radical of Radical Republicans into the presidency, they will be extremely limited in what they can do - public sentiments just don't exist for many of the wild plans some posters have outlined in this thread.

The northern population was, in general, little interested in plight of blacks in the south. As far as they are concerned, they have just gotten through an incredibly devastating conflict, and returning home and to normalcy is foremost in mind. Keeping an army of occupation numbering in the hundreds of thousands (and that is what it would take) in the South for decades, just to give ballots to blacks (men who are likely barred from the franchise in their own homestate up North) seems like madness. Secession and slavery were dead, and in the view of all but a small minority, that was enough.
 
To be blunt, top leadership doesn't matter - because even if you get the most radical of Radical Republicans into the presidency, they will be extremely limited in what they can do - public sentiments just don't exist for many of the wild plans some posters have outlined in this thread.

The northern population was, in general, little interested in plight of blacks in the south. As far as they are concerned, they have just gotten through an incredibly devastating conflict, and returning home and to normalcy is foremost in mind. Keeping an army of occupation numbering in the hundreds of thousands (and that is what it would take) in the South for decades, just to give ballots to blacks (men who are likely barred from the franchise in their own homestate up North) seems like madness. Secession and slavery were dead, and in the view of all but a small minority, that was enough.
But that does not mean. That thiese policies will fail.
 
The key things are land redistribution and it happening early. In the spring of 1865 the South was beaten and basically knew it. Pretty well the whole World was shocked and outraged at Lincoln's murder. A President could have made pardon for treason condtional on accepting the full freedom of former slaves and their politcial and property rights and in the case of basically the planter class their near total expropiation, possibly their exile from the rebel states and their not interfering with the politics of those lands.

The vast majority of white Southerners would not lose land. Those who did would be out of the way.

It would also have been smart to push the idea that the war was caused by the Planter class.

You would have to exempt at least Unionist Planters if not restricting it to those planters who were active in the rebellion. Being a planter would not be enough to seize their property, they would have had to been politicians, military officers or others of that type, Merely being a planter and (sadly) owning slaves was not illegal, so why are you punishing them? It would never fly in the courts. I think restricting it to active planters would fly but not every planter.
 
It means they wouldn't be enacted point blank.
Not true radical re constructionist like Thaddeus Stevens called for the redistribution of land to freedmen and also for the overall of institutions in the south. Others like Charles Sumner called for the redrawing of Southern states. And By Grant term in office the first KKK were destroyed. A radical or at least moderate president in office during the early stages of Reconstruction could somewhat successfully initiate some of these policies.
 
Last edited:
Yes Reconstruction can be more successful. But it’s a delicate thing. If you push to hard the whole house of cards comes down. Imo the best results would be received if Lincoln was still president and he could successfully persuade some high profile confederates to be the spokesmen for the message. Get people who are respected in the south and know how to talk to the people in the south to get them on board at least partially. I think this combined with a harder crackdown on the KKK you could reduce the violence to a large degree. But the discrimination is almost inevitable unless you crack down hard on the south in general, which just encourages further rebellion. You can get a slightly more successful reconstruction, but there’s no such thing as a perfect reconstruction.

Another problem is that Notherners weren't fighting for equal rights for Blacks but for the Union and emancipation with the former being stronger than the latter. They, mostly, agreed that there shouldn't be slaves but Blacks were still seen as inferior and making them second or third class citizens was fine with most Northerners.
 
What incentive would any administration have to do any of this?

All the North really wanted was a South which wouldn't rebel again, and they could get that without any of the above.
Also the Buffalo solders were initiated in our timeline, so a more radical president could expand the recruitment process.
 
IMO giving some land to poor whites as well would help enormously. Otherwise, the OTL myth that the Reconstructed governments were for the freedmen and against the whites would only be stronger. Giving land to both landless whites and freedmen would go a long way towards both groups seeing each other's interests as aligned.
I would sell the land cheap to all Union veterans regardless of race. This would be the easiest sell IMO, outside of just selling to White Union veterans which would be even easier.
 
Not true radical re constructionist like Thaddeus Stevens called for the redistribution of land to freedmen and also for the overall of institutions in the south. Others like Charles Sumner called for the redrawing of Southern states. And By Grant term in office the first KKK were destroyed. A radical or at least moderate president in office could somewhat successfully initiate some of these policies.

The "Land to freedmen" won't fly unless it is part of "Land for Union Veterans". Redrawing Southern states is doable. I am a believer in "State Suicide Theory" myself and think that the Southern States should have reverted to territorial status during the rebellion. Carve out the Unionist sections and give them statehood right away. Lump the traitorous sections together into huge states so they have less seats in the US Senate once they earn statehood.
 
Last edited:
The "Land to freedmen" won't fly unless it is part of "Land for Union Veterans". Redrawing Southern states is doable. I am a believer in "State Suicide Theory" myself and think that the Southern States should have reverted to territorial status during the rebellion. Carve out the Unionist sections and give them statehood right away. Lump the traitorous sections together into huge states so they have less seats in the US Senate once they earn statehood.
what about selling or giving land to homeless Southerners/poor Southerners whose land where lost in the war
 
Last edited:
Top