Pre-socialist party in US after Civil War

Is this possible that after much bloodier and larger Civil War (maybe use of gas shells during battles and sieges, naval bombardment with poison gas in order to shorten war) some sort of pre-socialist party would emerge in US? I am thinking about something criticizing Unionists for brutality (gas, atrocities) and Southeners for secession while advocating equality, emancipation of women and black Americans, welfare and maybe creation of state-owned companies for unemployed people? Something like - "we Americans are brothers so we should help each other in order to create better society not killing each other".
 
I believe the Communist Party had quite a bit of black support as they were the only party that fought for their equality. Something similar could occur, I think, with this party.
 
What do you mean by this? The Socialist Labor Party was formed at the end of the 1870s, even if the majority of its support came from German immigrants. Albert Parsons, later of Haymarket affair infamy, was an early leader in this group.
 
Although this is an unlikely POD, the late 1860s/early 1870s would be an interesting time for a socialist movement.

Most likely it would not be "socialist" as we recognise it. Some of the most important early voices in American socialism, such as Daniel De Leon, had not really established themselves by this point. Nor had Henry George's ideas galvanised the "progressive" or "populist" movement as it was termed.

Much like the Paris Commune of 1871, this "socialism" would be much less Marxist (who only really achieved his political ascendancy post-1871 in part by writing the post-script on the Commune) and much more anarchist in nature. Although again it might not be referred to, at least by supporters, as anarchist. I expect it would have utopian tinges and have an overall co-operative and Proudhonian flavour. It would be less likely to attract black support, or court it, depending on where in the country it occurred. Remember by no means did a majority of Northerners in the 1860s believe African Americans could be social equals. Women - harder to say. Many labour activists resisted calls for the emancipation of women because they felt that the ideal working-class home was where a man could bring home enough money to support his wife and children without them having to work. Depends, again, on where this emerges and who supports it.

You might want to look at movements like Chartism in the UK, active in the 1830s and 1840s, to give you a sense of what this pre-socialist radicalism looked like. Or perhaps take some inspiration from the LocoFocos and Young America movements.
 
Communism was ideologically founded in 1848, Socialism is a subdivision thereof, no reason to be 'pre-socialist'.

Technically yes, Communism was founded in 1848 if you date it to the Manifesto. But you'd be hard pressed to find many who would describe themselves as 'Communists' in our sense of the word before the 1870s. The majority of political radicals in the Paris Commune of 1871, for example, were neither Communist nor more broadly Marxist.

Socialism isn't a subdivision of Communism either, not really. Marxist socialism is, but the term was already being used in France and Britain by the early 1830s to encompass a much broader range of ideologies and political positions on the left. Historians tend to refer to this as pre- or proto- socialism though to distinguish it from the more modern definitions that came about from the mid 19th century. A 'socialist' party in the 1860s USA would not be Marxist, really, and as I tried to point out would be much closer to what we consider Anarchist today.
 
Top