Political effects of a successful Reconstruction

"Obscene" or not, wasn't it a pretty foregone conclusion?

Can you name me a single instance (unless the Hebrews and Haiti count) of any set of masters and slaves who went directly from that relationship to one of full equality? It just doesn't happen.

As for 1877, I'm not sure what you mean. The south was very careful not to try and reverse the northern victory. They never made any move either to secede again or to revive slavery, or even the semi-slavery of the 1865 Black Codes. They left the Blacks as citizens, though very definitely second-class ones.

Oh, I know it was foregone. That doesn't make it any less an obscenity or a tragedy. If anything that's what makes the Civil War as traumatic as it was, as while slavery's end was foreordained in a long war equality would end up delayed, which in a democracy if there are states that grow used to having the majority of the population treated unequally.......

But OTL saw a terrorist insurrection in the South--that was crushed.

(Seriously, the KKK in South Carolina got wiped out. South Carolina!)

For a time. Then the paramilitaries showed up and were rather harder to suppress than the KKK. Grant was a very good President asfar as such things were concerned.

I think you're right that we should never underestimate anti-Union sentiment among Southerners in the wake of the Civil war, and land offerings might not be enough to keep them from taking their frustration out on the Freedmen.

I believe that with a more thorough effort from Washington, a redistribution could be accomplished. Of course somebody is going to lose their land, and I think the plantation owning class would be the sacrifice needed for an effective restructuring.

But wholehearted federal backing would probably mean more of a military-occupation flavoured(evenmore than OTL) Reconstruction.
The increased presence of troops and the military controlling much of the judicial system, could potentially fuel even more hatred for the Union.
So this could seem like another Catch-22.

That's the way I see it, the only means that would actually change things are means that no version of the 19th Century USA that would be recognizable with accept or tolerate.
 
That's the way I see it, the only means that would actually change things are means that no version of the 19th Century USA that would be recognizable with accept or tolerate.

One could constitutionally justify Grant's repression of the "Redeemer" takeover of the Louisiana legislature on the grounds that the feds' responsibility is to preserve the republican form of government.
 
But OTL saw a terrorist insurrection in the South--that was crushed.

(Seriously, the KKK in South Carolina got wiped out. South Carolina!)

I don't think that OTL's KKK was the maximally strong/popular/enduring possible KKK. A stronger or longer reconstruction could easily have made it or a successor organization strong enough to either start a reprisal/collective punishment spiral with the federal authorities or to branch outward and become an entrenched organized crime syndicate with occasional expressions of politics...
 

Eurofed

Banned
I don't think that OTL's KKK was the maximally strong/popular/enduring possible KKK. A stronger or longer reconstruction could easily have made it or a successor organization strong enough to either start a reprisal/collective punishment spiral with the federal authorities or to branch outward and become an entrenched organized crime syndicate with occasional expressions of politics...

I'm not really convinced that land redistrubution from the aristocracy to blacks and poor whites is going to cause a stronger/more popular KKK, instead of the opposite. Say what you want about lingering Dixie patriotism and unreasoning racism, a lot of poor whites are going to be sold over by that, and without their support, the KKK is nerfed.
 
I'm not really convinced that land redistrubution from the aristocracy to blacks and poor whites is going to cause a stronger/more popular KKK, instead of the opposite. Say what you want about lingering Dixie patriotism and unreasoning racism, a lot of poor whites are going to be sold over by that, and without their support, the KKK is nerfed.

But, as said above, it's not just about the land. It's also about the effective retension of the franchise and equal protection under law, which is going to me a long term of effective occupation and intermittent martial law. And keeping that at a well-calibrated level without giving in to the temptation to either give up and go home or lose the national temper and go down the reprisals path is probably beyond reasonable expectation.

Gratitude is not a very strong human consideration, other than in the "earnest expectation of further favors" sense. The poor whites will be happy that they've got theirs, but won't hesitate to pull out the sheets when someone raises the prospect of miscegenation or even integrating police forces or other local governent jobs.
 

Eurofed

Banned
But, as said above, it's not just about the land. It's also about the effective retension of the franchise and equal protection under law, which is going to me a long term of effective occupation and intermittent martial law. And keeping that at a well-calibrated level without giving in to the temptation to either give up and go home or lose the national temper and go down the reprisals path is probably beyond reasonable expectation.

Gratitude is not a very strong human consideration, other than in the "earnest expectation of further favors" sense. The poor whites will be happy that they've got theirs, but won't hesitate to pull out the sheets when someone raises the prospect of miscegenation or even integrating police forces or other local governent jobs.

True, but if the North combines land redestribution with efficient military repression and economic incentives for rebuilding the South, the poor whites have added incentives to swallow franchise and equal protection under law. If your county cooperates, it get subsidies for reconstruction (lower case), if it does not, it gets no money and a lot of Blushirts to hang people that fancy wearing sheets.
 
One could constitutionally justify Grant's repression of the "Redeemer" takeover of the Louisiana legislature on the grounds that the feds' responsibility is to preserve the republican form of government.

Yes, one very much could. It's one reason Grant's Presidency is being bumped up these days. A pity he was about the only 19th Century President to see civil rights beyond the issue of mere abolition. :(
 

archaeogeek

Banned
Yes, one very much could. It's one reason Grant's Presidency is being bumped up these days. A pity he was about the only 19th Century President to see civil rights beyond the issue of mere abolition. :(

Okay reading on the redeemers makes me feel the derogatory terms used by the southern dems are awesome in terms of "I take it as a compliment, sir" especially "freedman" and "scallawag" - it's like, these words are made for insult backfire.
 
Yup. But then the term "Redeemer" applied to the very people (*coughAlexanderStephenscough*) who led the South into the losing war in the first place is rather disinengenuous itself, no?
 

archaeogeek

Banned
Yup. But then the term "Redeemer" applied to the very people (*coughAlexanderStephenscough*) who led the South into the losing war in the first place is rather disinengenuous itself, no?

Ah yes, the kind who in the event of more bitter reconstruction might very well have ended up lined against a wall.
 
I really disagree with many of the conclusions drawn out in this thread. The way I see it, Reconstruction was on the correct path to success going into the mid-1870's. What you need to happen is preventing the "Redemption" of the ex-Confederate states at the hands of the KKK and other similar organizations. Freed blacks were actually voting, and they were voting Republican. If the South is not uncontested for the Democrats, there is little chance that they will ever win the Presidency, or even gain majorities in Congress. This is why they so fervently support "Redemption"--they knew how much they would benefit politically. Unfortunately "Redemption" was successful, and terrorist organizations successful got many blacks to stop voting, so the racists regained power.

How to prevent "Redemption"? Add a line in the fourteenth amendment making deprivation of due process by private groups illegal. It will give the Federal government the right to intervene more to stop the KKK and such groups. Now, you may also need to get the North more supportive of these measures, but IOTL Federal intervention was shot down by the Supreme Court, so if you avoid that you're over the biggest hurdle. As long as they do this, the added black vote will make US politics slightly more progressive in regard to race relations in the years to come as a result of new electorate, and the Democrats will be forced to adapt.
 

Eurofed

Banned
How to prevent "Redemption"? Add a line in the fourteenth amendment making deprivation of due process by private groups illegal. It will give the Federal government the right to intervene more to stop the KKK and such groups. Now, you may also need to get the North more supportive of these measures, but IOTL Federal intervention was shot down by the Supreme Court, so if you avoid that you're over the biggest hurdle. As long as they do this, the added black vote will make US politics slightly more progressive in regard to race relations in the years to come as a result of new electorate, and the Democrats will be forced to adapt.

Now, this looks like an excellent idea. I'm going to steal it for my signature TL. :cool:
 
Ah yes, the kind who in the event of more bitter reconstruction might very well have ended up lined against a wall.

Which would be no great loss if it happened. After all, the Confederates *did* lead the South into a losing war that saw several hundred thousand Southern men killed only to lose in the end with the South laid waste. Why so many of my fellow Southerners admire the Confederacy I do not know. Nothing good could come of it regardless of whether it won or lost.

And good riddance.

Agreed. Executing only Henry Wirz was a big, big mistake. And there was no rationale to hang Wirz but not say, the survivors of Quantrill's butchers or Nathan Bedford Forrest.

I really disagree with many of the conclusions drawn out in this thread. The way I see it, Reconstruction was on the correct path to success going into the mid-1870's. What you need to happen is preventing the "Redemption" of the ex-Confederate states at the hands of the KKK and other similar organizations. Freed blacks were actually voting, and they were voting Republican. If the South is not uncontested for the Democrats, there is little chance that they will ever win the Presidency, or even gain majorities in Congress. This is why they so fervently support "Redemption"--they knew how much they would benefit politically. Unfortunately "Redemption" was successful, and terrorist organizations successful got many blacks to stop voting, so the racists regained power.

How to prevent "Redemption"? Add a line in the fourteenth amendment making deprivation of due process by private groups illegal. It will give the Federal government the right to intervene more to stop the KKK and such groups. Now, you may also need to get the North more supportive of these measures, but IOTL Federal intervention was shot down by the Supreme Court, so if you avoid that you're over the biggest hurdle. As long as they do this, the added black vote will make US politics slightly more progressive in regard to race relations in the years to come as a result of new electorate, and the Democrats will be forced to adapt.

The elephant in the room being that the Confederates who made up the KKK were targeting blacks, who suffered racism in the North much as they did in the South, and you'd better believe the Dems would play up the racial angle as far as that version of the 14th Amendment would be concerned. It'd be monstrous, sure, but it's not like that bothered the Confederates as it was.
 
Punitive land expropriation of Southerners that backed Rebellion, with poor whites getting an amnesty, but not the aristocracy.

Permanent land expropriation was not possible under the Constitution, which allows forfeiture only "during the lifetime of the person attainted". So the land would eventully revert to the heirs of its former owners.

And please don't talk about an amendment. You'd never get one for anything that extreme. Even at the height of the Radicals' ascendancy, an attempt to add a confiscation measure to the Reconstruction Acts was defeated three to one.



Economic benefits can do wonders to win former enemies to the victors' cause, see post-WWII Germany and Japan, and the whole attitude of poor whites to Black emancipation is bound to change if they get to benefit in an equal amount from the process.


But where is Stalin?

Germany and Japan went along with the western democracies because the alternative was to be left to the tender mercies of Uncle Joe. Uncle Sam was clearly the lesser evil.

There was no such "worse" in 1865 to make the South hang on to a northern "nurse". If there is a 20C parallel, it is not the Germany of 1945 but that of 1918 - and we all know how that turned out.
 
Last edited:
The elephant in the room being that the Confederates who made up the KKK were targeting blacks, who suffered racism in the North much as they did in the South, and you'd better believe the Dems would play up the racial angle as far as that version of the 14th Amendment would be concerned. It'd be monstrous, sure, but it's not like that bothered the Confederates as it was.


Honestly, I don't think that what you describe is even the biggest hindrance to a successful reconstruction in my scenario. IOTL, by the mid 1870's, the North was just tired of the constant need to intervene to stop violence in the South. First there was the Civil War, and then all of the Reconstruction issues the North had to deal with...by 1872, even some Republicans (not so much the radical ones) were moving on from Reconstruction, believing that corruption was a bigger issue that the USA had to face. Soon, talk of reconciliation between the North and the South gained popularity as people in the North were tired of violence. Now, a way to fix this is to rephrase the entire argument. Many Southern Democrats screamed 'Federalism' when the Federal government did programs like the Freedman's Bureau, saying that it violated states rights and was against the American way. This argument was hugly successful, because the Republican motto was "Free Labor", as in men get what they work for, which government handouts kind of contradicted. But, what if Grant and the Republicans had a different argument? Instead of arguing for more handouts for freed slaves(which, in all fairness, they probably needed) they argue that Reconstruction is fighting against ex-Confederate terrorists who are killing and maiming people in the South. IOTL, this argument what shot down by the Supreme Court since it was ruled that this was a state job, not a Federal one. But in this ATL, that argument can't be made due to the different 14th amendment.
 
Many Southern Democrats screamed 'Federalism' when the Federal government did programs like the Freedman's Bureau, saying that it violated states rights and was against the American way. This argument was hugly successful, because the Republican motto was "Free Labor", as in men get what they work for, which government handouts kind of contradicted. But, what if Grant and the Republicans had a different argument? Instead of arguing for more handouts for freed slaves(which, in all fairness, they probably needed) they argue that Reconstruction is fighting against ex-Confederate terrorists who are killing and maiming people in the South. IOTL, this argument what shot down by the Supreme Court since it was ruled that this was a state job, not a Federal one. But in this ATL, that argument can't be made due to the different 14th amendment.


Sorry to keep raining on the parade, but how do you get the different 14th Amendment?

The OTL one only passed the Senate 33-11, ie with just three votes to spare. Toughen it up, and you're pretty certain to lose those three, plus the fourth one which results in its defeat. Some of the six senators who either abstained or were absent may also turn up and vote no.

Incidentally, the original 14th Amendment, as passed by the HoR, was indeed tougher, disfranchising all ex-Confederates until 1870. However, the Senate wouldn't wear that, and OTL's Amendment represented the maximum that they would accept.
 
Honestly, I don't think that what you describe is even the biggest hindrance to a successful reconstruction in my scenario. IOTL, by the mid 1870's, the North was just tired of the constant need to intervene to stop violence in the South. First there was the Civil War, and then all of the Reconstruction issues the North had to deal with...by 1872, even some Republicans (not so much the radical ones) were moving on from Reconstruction, believing that corruption was a bigger issue that the USA had to face. Soon, talk of reconciliation between the North and the South gained popularity as people in the North were tired of violence. Now, a way to fix this is to rephrase the entire argument. Many Southern Democrats screamed 'Federalism' when the Federal government did programs like the Freedman's Bureau, saying that it violated states rights and was against the American way. This argument was hugly successful, because the Republican motto was "Free Labor", as in men get what they work for, which government handouts kind of contradicted. But, what if Grant and the Republicans had a different argument? Instead of arguing for more handouts for freed slaves(which, in all fairness, they probably needed) they argue that Reconstruction is fighting against ex-Confederate terrorists who are killing and maiming people in the South. IOTL, this argument what shot down by the Supreme Court since it was ruled that this was a state job, not a Federal one. But in this ATL, that argument can't be made due to the different 14th amendment.

And how exactly do you expect the ATL Republicans to successfully pass a law designed to protect black civil rights? We'd consider that a good thing *now* but there was a nauseating tendency in rhetoric then to refer to precisely what we'd consider good now as bad things. Either the war lasts longer/is more bloody thus meaning a greater role for black troops or the North has a much stronger Garrison/Chase faction. Otherwise OTL is about as good as it gets, and that was not "good" in any meaningful sense of the word.
 
And how exactly do you expect the ATL Republicans to successfully pass a law designed to protect black civil rights? We'd consider that a good thing *now* but there was a nauseating tendency in rhetoric then to refer to precisely what we'd consider good now as bad things. Either the war lasts longer/is more bloody thus meaning a greater role for black troops or the North has a much stronger Garrison/Chase faction. Otherwise OTL is about as good as it gets, and that was not "good" in any meaningful sense of the word.



It left the Blacks a darned sight more free than before the War, and put two Constutional Amendments through which would give the government the weapons it needed to uphold civil rights as an when the will to do so materialised. Immediately, it gave the Blacks the same kind of second class citizenship whaich they had in the Antebellum north - and which thousands of runaway slaves had risked their lives to achieve. Sounds good to me, if imperfect like most things.
 
Top