Lincoln makes balanced reconstruction proposal

WI at the end of his powerful moving speach at the second inaugral Lincoln had said (in better words than these he being Lincoln and me not)

"So when the rebellion is defeated all the people of the South should be involved in Reconstruction and reunion. Therefore we should allow former confederates to vote but also former slaves."
 
They had the vote in OTL Reconstuction too. It was when the North (i.e. Fed. Govt.) pulled out and let the south managed their affairs that things went "south"
 
Possibly something like the proposal of Senator William M Stewart of Nevada in Spring 1866. He wished to amend the Constitution so that all literacy or other qualifications for new voters (existing ones could be exempted) should apply irrespective of race or colour. Any rebel state accepting this (and repudiating the Confederate debt etc) should be readmitted, and all its inhabitants enjoy complete and unconditional amnesty.

The proposal attracted wide support, from persons as disparate as Governor John A Andrew of Massachusetts and Alexander H Stephens of Georgia. Unfortunately, as the quarrel between Andrew Johnson and Congress grew fiercer, it was not pursued. Under Lincoln it might have been.

See Ch XXII of Stewart's Reminiscences, online at

http://www.nevadaobserver.com/Readi...niscences of William M. Stewart 03 (1908).htm
 
And I'm sorry, but a constitutional amendment doesn't change the matter of facts on the ground. Considering that the prohibitions against black voters were technically supposed to apply against white voters (and were in fact used to disqualify Farmer's Alliance voters on numerous occasions in the OTL South), it doesn't change anything.
 

Blair152

Banned
WI at the end of his powerful moving speach at the second inaugral Lincoln had said (in better words than these he being Lincoln and me not)

"So when the rebellion is defeated all the people of the South should be involved in Reconstruction and reunion. Therefore we should allow former confederates to vote but also former slaves."
Lincoln wanted a more balanced reconstruction. It was the Radical Republicans who screwed it up.
 
And once again, a more balanced Reconstruction would be one that was even worse in regards to civil rights.

Civil Rights only existed while there was extensive military occupation and extensive Federal involvement in the South. Once that was gone, Civil Rights went with it.

A more "balanced" Reconstruction sees an earlier re-institution of the Black Codes and an earlier and more total disenfranchisement of American Blacks. Any situation that manages to extend Civil Rights and give something more favorable to the Freedmen would be, by necessity, even less "balanced" than OTL.
 
Lincoln had every intention of making a more balanced, less punitive Reconstruction. A single line thrown into a speech wouldn't have changed anything if he's still assassinated. The same people who screwed up Reconstruction will still do so even if he adds such a line. Now, if Booth's plot is foiled, and Lincoln is allowed to live out the rest of his second term--and especially if he runs for, and receives, a third term, which was still possible in the 19th century--then we'll have a balanced Reconstruction.
 
So..."let 'em up easy" didn't mean anything, then?


It didn't mean anything because he was assassinated and wasn't there to carry it out.

I agree, though, that it wouldn't do the Blacks much good in the short term. My "Stewart Amendment" would be evaded much as OTL's 14th and 15th were. However, with no Radical Reconstruction, there will be less sympathy for the Southerners, who will be seen as having reneged on a fair and generous settlement. This may increase anti-Southern (and hence anti-Democrat) feeling in the North.

The Republican Party could benefit some from this. Hayes, in 1876, may take Connecticut and Indiana - both very narrowly lost OTL - to beat Tilden 187-182, even without any Southern electoral votes: and in 1884, NY might stay in the Republican column and elect Blaine over Cleveland.

And with no Black Reconstruction to cry about, the South may find it harder to resist Civil Rights in the Fifties.
 
It didn't mean anything because he was assassinated and wasn't there to carry it out.

I agree, though, that it wouldn't do the Blacks much good in the short term. My "Stewart Amendment" would be evaded much as OTL's 14th and 15th were. However, with no Radical Reconstruction, there will be less sympathy for the Southerners, who will be seen as having reneged on a fair and generous settlement. This may increase anti-Southern (and hence anti-Democrat) feeling in the North.

The Republican Party could benefit some from this. Hayes, in 1876, may take Connecticut and Indiana - both very narrowly lost OTL - to beat Tilden 187-182, even without any Southern electoral votes: and in 1884, NY might stay in the Republican column and elect Blaine over Cleveland.

And with no Black Reconstruction to cry about, the South may find it harder to resist Civil Rights in the Fifties.

It looks to me that you've still conceded 80 years of Jim Crow, though.
 
Touching on something somewhat discussed here, I believe Lincoln believed in "equality through education"; that the former slaves must be educated so as to be equal citizens, and then they could vote and take part in the greater society. If Lincoln were to make this an active goal and support Freedman's Schools throughout the South, I think it would leave the black population far better off. But, if it were education and then the vote, enfranchisement could be pushed off for a certain amount of time.
The problems is inequality will still be there regardless of any law. To concede a point, whites across the US were taught that there was a distinction between the races with whites as superior to blacks. But in the South it was a unique animal; it was propagated as a neo-feudal caste system where hammering in the idea of white over black was necessary for the society to function as it did (I've read that in Southerners hated the race but liked individuals within the race, while the Northerners liked the race but hate the individuals within the race). It was because of this you saw white backlash, the Klan, and so forth rise from the ashes of the former Southern order. It'll take a social movement for black equality to be taken seriously. Certainly legal means would help by acting as a legitimizing force and a buttress to the concept, but a change in the social fabric is necessary.

I'd also like to say two things: firstly, Lincoln supported a lenient reconstruction because he believed that the south would be forgiving to the former blacks and allow for the equality. Obviously, this was very much not the case. Viewing this, Lincoln (who had a history of amending his views) could very well adjust to the situation out of pragmatism. Second, Lincoln will not run for a third term. It was not forbidden yet, but I doubt very much he'd want to do it for the same reasons most others have not wanted to. He also had an interest in his post-presidential years of traveling to the west and seeing California which he had yet to do.
 
I don't think Jim Crow laws have to be have been as extreme as they were for as long as they were, being up to the 1950s/60s. However, it's true that Southern society as a whole needed to be changed.

I do, though, think that - by eliminating the biggest problems - Jim Crow can be toned down and wind up not lasting as long. (Unless, of course, you're talking more years of military presence than I think anyone was willing to put up with.)

How soon can it come? If President Lincoln manages to survive, especially in a shorter Civil War by 18 months like "If Baseball Integrated Early," then there isn't the intense Northern anger. Yes, he'd probably still have to focus on ending some of the violence, even if he tries to get poor whites and ex-slaves to come together politically. the amount, I leave to those more expert int he area. However, if you have the vigilantes/terrrists stopped by Federal troops right away, so such actions are clearly Federal crimes, then you have at least somewhat less of a problem.

Use Federal law enforcement only to stop that, and not to totally dominate the entire South, and I think you see two things: 1. It can last for a longer time, so there's not as much impatience; 2. Less Southern hostility toward the North in general. They'll say, "Hey, they haven't tried to overwhelm us, they're just enforcing laws against one specific type of problem." Laws that they might be able to get a fair number of Southerns to support.

With that, yes, Lincoln's legacy is that of a milder Reconstruction that just never quite worked to give the ex-slaves all the equality they needed. However, it might prevent the worst of the Jim Crow laws. the South of 1900 might be like the North of 1900 in OTL as far as the way discrimination goes. I think that, as society focuses on the extreme abuses against blacks, suddenly, you can see things start to get a little better. Immediate enforcement, coupled with a lack of Northern occupation of the South, could prevent the Klan from coming back as a political force in the 1910s, as the author of the book that inspired "Birth of a Nation" in OTL sees them in a very negative light. (he writes a different book, inspring a different movie, in my book, focusing on General Lee.)

Then what? A generation grows up in the 1870s and 1880s which doesn't recall the extreme bitterness of a harsh Reconstruction, and only hears of the Federal government doing enough to prevent widespread mayhem, that's all. They learn to be more lenient, see lynching as bad, and - in a society where blacks are a little freer - a Civil Rights movement can start in the 1910s or 1920s. And, when Federal legislation is proposed, it's not hated quite as much. Southern states might even pass some themselves.

Of course, you need a lot of things to go right, which is why I throw in baseball being integrated from the beginning, which is my focus anyway :) Seeing great black stars on a national stage, under limits like the NFL had in the 1950s and 1960s (2 blacks per team) till the early 1900s when one manager pushes for more, allows just one more way for people to see that they can be together in public, on the same team. (Octavius Catto also survives, which helps a lot, too.)

A Civil Rights movement before the 1910s or 1920s, thugh, would be very hard. Unless, as I noted, there's such extreme Federal domination in the 1860s, 1870s, maybe 1880s, that it totally tears Southern society apart.
 
Last edited:
It looks to me that you've still conceded 80 years of Jim Crow, though.


Yes, unless an economic and/or technological solution can be found.

What killed Jim Crow, more than anything, was the mechanisation of Southern agriculture from about WW2. That led to Blacks moving into the towns, where they could defend themselves more easily (safety in numbers) than on isolated farms.

The New Deal also helped, by making the economies of southern states increasingly dependent on Federal programmes. By the 1960s, Southern Governors might do the occasional bit of grandstanding in schoolhouse doors, but it signified no more than a child throwing a tantrum against the father who gave him his pocket money. State sovereignty was a reality as long as states largely paid their own way, but once they became pensioners of Uncle Sam, it ceased to have much meaning.

If you want to do anything about Jim Crow, you either need a cheap mechanical cotton picker in the 19th Century, or a Fedrull Gummint with economic clout comparable to FDR's day - preferably both. Failing these, I suspect you can pass laws and even Amendments till you are blue in the face, without making much of a dent in it.
 

cw1865

XIV Amendment

The XIV Amendment should've killed Jim Crow right off the bat. It was clear that the author's intent was to incorporate the Bill of Rights against the states, but they didn't do it! {Slaughterhouse Cases took a narrow view of the P&I Clause within the Amendment}
 
hadn't thought about the agricultural problem. Oh, well, it's vague enough in IBIE that there could be an earlier machanical one; never know who survives an ACW that ends 18 months early.:D That's for if i ever do another book in the IBIE universe, focusing ont he political element, though.
 
The XIV Amendment should've killed Jim Crow right off the bat. It was clear that the author's intent was to incorporate the Bill of Rights against the states, but they didn't do it! {Slaughterhouse Cases took a narrow view of the P&I Clause within the Amendment}


See my previous message.

It didn't matter a "Gordon Brownstuff" what the authors of the 14th Amendment intended. Preventing Jim Crow (until the agricultural economy on which it rested became obsolete in the 20C) simply required vastly more effort than anyone in the north was ever prepared to make. Once it became clear that the Southern leadership had reaccepted the Union, so that there was no particular need to exclude them from power at State level, the 14th and 15th Amendments lost their raison d'etre and were consigned to the broom closet for the next three generations, until a new economic and political world made them relevant again.

There is no "should" in this area. Laws mean whatever the public opinion of the time wants them to mean.
 
Top