President Hamlin 1865-1873 or Real Reconstruction

[Michael E Johnson]

The fact that Andrew Johnson was in position to become president once Abraham Lincoln was assissinated all but insured that the Civil War was in many ways a phyrric victory for the North in general and blacks in particular.Not that things would have been much better if Lincoln had continued as president.While Johnson hated the planters in Dixie and wanted them humbled he had no desire to see blacks rise to a position of equality with poor whites in Dixie.As president he did everything he could to prevent this from happening including eventually openly advocating the former Confederate traitors getting their power and influence back.But what what if Hannibal Hamlin had remained on the ticket in 1864-as President would he along with the Republicans have correctly and justly punished the Confederate traitors and helped the former slaves establish themselves.The fact that this didnt happen is the main reason for the large black-underclass that still exists today.The reconstruction peroid in this country allowed the white south to both justify its treason in the Civil War and institute a de-facto re-enlavement of blacks for another 100 years-would this minor change have stopped that? Any and all ideas appreciated.

 

[Beck Reilly]

Okay, well, it appears like you're a little radically pro-North but no, Hannibal Hamlin's Presidency would have been anything but "just." Had Hamlin become President and "punished the Confederate traitors and helped the former slaves establish themselves," the United States would have been in a world of shit for the next hundred and fifty years. Read 'Must and Shall' by HT. It's probably quite accurate as to what would have happened had Hamlin become President. The Reconstruction of OTL is probably the only Reconstruction which could have possibly left the US in anything even approaching good shape in 1900. Hamlin's TL would have been wrought with constant rebellion, supression, and social warfare. It would have been a hell that I, personally, would not want to live in.

BTW, some of your comments about the "Confederate traitors" and the "just" supression and punishment of white southerners approach, and probably cross, the line between an argument and baiting a flame-war.

 

[Straha]

the CSA would probably secede in the 1990's in a quebec style deal and take maryland and olkaholma with it. The USA wouldn't care because the CSA would be america's bosnia or vietnam

 

[Michael E Johnson]

--it appears like you're a little radically pro-North--- radically pro-North? As an African-American I guess I plead guilty but then again most Jews are probably radically pro-Allies.

In the Must and Shall universe the South was humilated and punished for its treason while the blacks and the North were rewarded for its loyalty-while the US still acheived great power status.I could live with that especially since HT's version of the South was no less terrible for African-Americans throughout the whole of OTL history in this peroid. There is an old saying that many African-Americans have come to embrace in America-2 wrongs dont make a right but it damn sure makes it even( ie- 1 reason why many African-Americans "supported " OJ Simpson).I hope that HT expands Must and Shall into a full length novel a la In the Presence of My Enemies

--BTW, some of your comments about the "Confederate traitors" and the "just" supression and punishment of white southerners approach, and probably cross, the line between an argument and baiting a flame-war.-


I dont see how anyone could be interested in a flamewar about this topic unless they have a pro-South position which would be lets see -dissolution of the United States and the continuation of black slavery. Oops was that what the South was wrong about

 

[PM Nixon]

Being an African American also, I can agree with you Michael about the Confederacy. But hopefully, this will not turn into a flame war.

Did you check my message on the other board? He certainly was a Radical Republican, but I've gotta think it would have been very hard to get any real, lasting reform in the former CSA done without a bloodier Reconstruction. Not to say it's impossible, though...

 

[Michael E Johnson]

--it would have been very hard to get any real, lasting reform in the former CSA done without a bloodier Reconstruction. Not to say it's impossible, though...--


I agree with you about this but bloodier than what-say the Civil War? I'm no longer Christian but I was raised that way so some of the vindictive imagery sticks in my mind.The South sowed the wind so they should have reaped the whirlwind.The appalling casualties in the Civil War in order to continue the evil of slavery are laid right at the feet of the South.The fact that they were allowed to do this and get away with it by essentially re-enslaving blacks for another 100 years is 1 of the greatest injustices in history.The only 1 I can think of thats worse is how the Germans got off the hook after WWII.

 

[Beck Reilly]

I don't see how a harsher punishment of the South would be possible without tearing the nation apart worse than the Civil War ever did. By relegating Southern whites to a lower position, northerners would have made the South into a permenant, vindictive enemy...

 

[Michael E Johnson]

---
By relegating Southern whites to a lower position, northerners would have made the South into a permenant, vindictive enemy...---

OH-I guess this would be worse than what happened OTL - continuing to relegate Southern (and Northern) blacks to a lower position so whites could continue to benefit.Humm let me think-I still like my option better because while neither is clean at least in my option the innocent are being rewarded instead of the guilty which is what happened OTL. Justice isnt always pretty but its alot better than injustice anyday.

 

[Beck Reilly]

I think at the times, in the late 1860s, the slaves were happy enough to be at least nominally free that it was not THAT big of a deal to allow the whites to continue living relatively normally. Had Congress passed a harsher Reconstuction, yes, the ex-slaves might have happier, but you'd have a infinitely vindictive white southern enemy. In OTL, however, no, the slaves might not have been raised on a pedestal and placed above the whites or whatever you'd want to happen, but at least they were (nominally) free. They were happy enough about this and the whites were, although upset, calm enough to heal the nation's wound. In the end, I think what happened in OTL was the only logical way to conduct Reconstruction. And yes, I do think it was better not to make an enemy out of the white Southerners, especially when you could make the ex-slaves at least a little happy.

 

[Derek Jackson]

The clever thing would have been for the North to promote the idea of a big difference between the Slave owning elite and ordinary white Southerners

It would have been essential to confiscate land from big land owners. It could easily be justified- and a lot milder than the normal punishment for treason.

If land is redistributed to former slaves it would be harder to exclude them from political life simply because they would be less vulnerable.

 

[Wiggy]

The only 1 I can think of thats worse is how the Germans got off the hook after WWII.

Off the hook? The Nuremberg trials, millions dead, a ruined country cut in half with the east occupied by a brutal communist regime for nearly half a century. All of Europe suffered through the war. Off the hook is a bit off the mark.

I think that the approach of reconstruction and reconciliation the western allies took after WWII was far better and probably far more difficult than what happened after WWI. Punishing a defeated Germany simply set up the next war, just as the terms of the German victory over the French in 1870 contributed to the start of WWI.

Look at Europe today. The continent is dominated by democracies, it is prosperous and a pan-European state is emerging. It took generosity, courage and wisdom to adopt a conciliatory approach and it has paid handsome dividends to the continent and it's peoples.

The Reconstruction clearly somehow missed the mark and the people of the US – black and white – have paid a high price for that failure. The US is a strong democracy and an example in many ways for the rest of the world, but I think the strength and character of the nation would have been greatly enhanced by more even-handed Reconstruction properly focused on justice and reconciliation. The leadership of the south got off too lightly (trials and appropriate penalties) and the restored nation's new black citizens were not treated generously enough (freehold land grants, meaningful political rights).

 

[Melvin Loh]

I fully agree with Derek, Wiggy and Michael on Reconstruction needing more emphasis on implementing accountability with the white Southern landowning class while simultaneously better supporting black civil and economic rights after 1865. I also stand by what I said in my previous post in the race relations- better or worse thread.

Hey, Michael, on your comment re blacks supporting O.J. Simpson in 1994, I remember reading in the WEEKEND AUSTRALIAN soon after the trial that blacks in America also perceived the need to set O.J. free in order to rectify such historical injustices as the trial of innocent black men on trumped-up charges, such as the Scottsboro 9 in 1930, and the acquittal of guilty whites such as Arthur (?) Bryant and his brother-in-law who murdered Emmett Till in 1955.