Reconstruction succeeds

[H.Flashman(VC)]

I’d dearly love to see a timeline in which we clip the wings of the so-called “Supreme” Court.

The motivation might be the Dred Scott decision which instead of helping in a time of national crisis actually made things worse. And the method might be to borrow from parliamentary systems which still have a central court, but it just has a lot less power.

The strong position of the supreme court has grown out of the situation of the founding. There are two other elements created then that no other country with parliamentary system has. One, your constitution is much shorter and by purpose much more indeterminate than other constitutions. Secondly, the splitting of sovereignty between federal and state, that no other country has that way. IMO especialy the second needs to be changed to clip the Supreme Courts growth of importance.

 

[GeographyDude]

The thing to remember is, that by the standards of the time, it did succeed. Chattel slavery was outlawed, the South returned to the Union , the country was rebuilt and Southern boys were signing up to join the US Army as early as the Spanish-American War. As far as the people who fought in it were concerned it was a smashing success.

Well, I’m not yet ready to sing hymns and hosannas when approximately 30% of the population are treated as second-class citizens or worse!

I do acknowledge it’s a very difficult problem. And I’m happy to keep working on it.

 

[samcster94]

The strong position of the supreme court has grown out of the situation of the founding. There are two other ellements created then that no other country with parliamentary system has. One, your constitution is much shorter and by purpose much more indeterminate than other constitutions. Secondly, the splitting of sovereignty between federal and state, that no other country has that way. IMO especialy the second needs to be changed to clip the Supreme Courts growth of importance.

I do think it could be a good time for unrelated political reforms(like redrawing Southern states and making more West Virginias might have been conceivable then).

 

[Mikestone8]

It was. But He wanted to retain a federal commitment to civil rights.

How does it matter what he wanted? There would be next to nothing he could do, and even a serious attempt would cheese off northern voters, leading to a firmly Democratic Congress in 1882.

 

[Anarch King of Dipsodes]

The obvious point is the assassination of Lincoln and the presidency of Andrew Johnson.

For the first four years after the war, Reconstruction was under the control of a white supremacist Democrat. That enabled white supremacist Democrats to gain near-total leadership of the white Southern population.

It was followed by Radical Reconstruction, which achieved political control in much of the South by empowering blacks. But the immediate empowerment of the black majority amounted to overturn of the social order in those areas, shocking and even panicking many whites, who were easily rallied behind the white supremacist Redeemers. The basis of the Redeemers had been formed in 1865-1868.

The outcome of the ensuing struggle was, IMO, overdetermined. The Federal government did not have the tools, either legal or administrative, to defeat the Redeemers; it had to be done by the blacks on the ground in those states. And (again, IMO) the blacks were not prepared, either culturally or psychologically, for that struggle. They were newly escaped from the infantilizing condition of slavery, and the handful who were capable of fighting were overwhelmed by the Redeemers (and frequently murdered).

So what is the alternative? If Lincoln lives, then in the very opening stages of Reconstruction, there will be a strong effort, managed by an expert politician with all the resources of Federal patronage, to recruit white Southerners for the Republican Party. That much is certain. Lincoln's policy toward the freed slaves was not yet clearly defined when he died, but it seems that he was moving toward the idea that there must be some degree of power sharing: that is, some blacks should vote. Southern whites would resist this, but it would be much less alarming than the complete enfranchisement of OTL Radical Reconstruction, and thus generate much less opposition. Lincoln would also push for rules such as allowing blacks to testify in court and serve on juries.

(These last ideas might be less radical than one would think. Vice President and Confederate general John Breckinridge had an uncle Robert, a Presbyterian minister in Louisville, and a Republican (hat tip, Dave T). Rev. Robert had two sons, who served in the Union and Confederate armies. Willie, the Confederate, returned to Kentucky after the war, and went into politics. He was a prominent member of the "New Departure" group among Kentucky Democrats, who advocated civil equality for blacks, starting with testifying in court.)

Thus it could be possible for the South to start on the path to civil equality of races, and avoid the long detour into white supremacy enforced by terror.

However, the 14th and 15th Amendments would not be adopted, and without them, white supremacy could remain formally entrenched. So the long-term prognosis remains uncertain.

 

[Seandineen]

How does it matter what he wanted? There would be next to nothing he could do, and even a serious attempt would cheese off northern voters, leading to a firmly Democratic Congress in 1882.

Perhaps, Something tales me he would try, however forelorn.

 

[Mikestone8]

Perhaps, Something tales me he would try, however forelorn.

Perhaps something like the Lodge Force Bill of 1890?

Like that, it might squeeze through the HoR, and then either die in the Senate, by struck down by the SCOTUS, or repealed by the Cleveland Administration.

 

[Seandineen]

Good example.

 

[GeographyDude]

. . . Secondly, the splitting of sovereignty between federal and state, that no other country has that way. IMO especialy the second needs to be changed to clip the Supreme Courts growth of importance.

I disagree.

And I fully acknowledge that perhaps because the United States is what I primarily know, this is what feels normal and regular to me. But don’t the provinces in Canada have a fair amount of authority, and/or the 29 states of the nation of India?

 

[H.Flashman(VC)]

I disagree.

And I fully acknowledge that perhaps because the United States is what I primarily know, this is what feels normal and regular to me. But don’t the provinces in Canada have a fair amount of authority, and/or the 29 states of the nation of India?

Yes in Canada they have, but that authority is given out by the central goverment. The final sovereignty lied and still lies at the federal level. In the US the federal government had always to fight for the authorithy to make a decision for the whole country. I would say there was and still is a shared sovereignty.

 

[GeographyDude]

. . In the US the federal government had always to fight for the authorithy to make a decision for the whole country. I would say there was and still is a shared sovereignty.

But Germany wasn’t even a nation until about the (?) 1860s and I don’t know if their central court has this much actual power.

It might be some of both, with the other side being that the U.S. Court was effective at building power.

We in the U.S. are taught (briefly) in school about the early Supreme Court decision Madison vs. Marbury, as if it were the greatest thing in the world. When in fact, the president had fired some guy and Congress referred this to the Court. That is, it was a pretty nickel and dime case, although admittedly affecting the job of one guy. Anyway, the court leveraged this situation, by saying, Oh, No, No, Congress doesn’t refer cases to us, we’ll take our own cases thank you very much. Now, they may have been largely right in this one.

But they damn sure weren’t right on a pair of child labor cases in 1918 and 1922.

Plus, the Dred Scott (1857) which instead of helping in a time of national crisis and helping to prevent the Civil War, was a factor which did the opposite. And from a post on page one, a fellow member talks about how the Court did not advance equal Civil Rights for newly-freed slaves (for example, by striking a medium course). Instead, the Court was rather on the side of rolling back rights.

And the other national crisis of the Great Depression, the Court was working against us rather than with us. I’m sorry, but they were. Not even a hot mess, the Court is just a boring mess. A small set of formalistic scholars who think they’re smarter than us (maybe true), but they think that gives them the right to lord over us and on that one they’re quite mistaken.

 

[Seandineen]

The fear of krytocracy, government by judges, has lead to both good and horrifying results, limitations, and bold prescient setting.

 

[GeographyDude]

The fear of krytocracy, . . .

Yes, I do think the Supreme Court has let us down during critical times and on important issues, but please notice at the end of the day all I’m saying is, Let’s take a look at how things work in a parliamentary system in which the central court simply has less power.

And we might merely borrow this aspect, without going full-fledged parliamentary.

 

[ksarles]

Yes, I do think the Supreme Court has let us down during critical times and on important issues, but please notice at the end of the day all I’m saying is, Let’s take a look at how things work in a parliamentary system in which the central court simply has less power.

And we might merely borrow this aspect, without going full-fledged parliamentary.

One of the major mistakes made by the Founding Fathers (in my humble opinion), was giving life time terms to SCJ's. Limiting their time on the bench would have allowed for fresh opinion on a more frequent timescale.

 

[Skallagrim]

This thread has gone a bit off-track, so... back to the actual topic. Could Reconstruction have succeeded? I think it's fairly difficult because of political realities, but that if the will had been there, serious results could have been achieved. Now, lots of people nowadays have an instinct that tells them "punish the evil slavers! Bloody justice!" -- but this instinct is wrong. All thoughts of vengeance must be discarded before any effective Reconstruction can be conceived of. The paramount goal must be to create a postbellum South that is best equipped to exist harmoniously and to prosper. This means minimising any resentment, and that means very deliberately saying "the whole secession and the whole war were terribly unfortunate things, and slavery was a historical error, and now that is behind us. A new era dawns, we begin with a clean slate."

What to scribble on that fresh, blank slate? Regardless of not setting out to punish anyone, I do think that the big plantations have to be deliberately cut up. Why? Because in OTL, lots of freed blacks were soon reduced to slavery-in-all-but-name, working on the same plantations. The plantation economy must end. Therefore, I think that a viable alt-Reconstruction strategy would have been to forcibly partition all the big plantations, and create smaller farms/plots for both freed blacks and poor whites. Why the latter? To ensure that poor whites do not feel resetment "because everything is being given to the blacks!"

At the same time, seriously get underway granting farmland ("and a mule!") out West to a lot of freed black families. Why? Again, it's best not to keep freed blacks concentrated in an area where they were subjugated and are now in direct economic competition with poor whites. If a substantial number of blacks are moved out West, the economic "pressure" among the poor in the South will correspondingly decrease, which will ease any white animosity considerably. Also, it to some extent prevents there being a "black" part of the Union.

Finally, begin major investments in infrastructure in the South. The antebellum "plantation-to-harbour" railways that only ever served that plantation economy simply are no good for a modern, thriving economy. If better infrastructure is realised, a more economically diverse South can be built up after the war, with greater opportunities for all. This, too, will reduce the risks of racial hatred based on perceived "job stealing" by former slaves. After all, there will be more jobs available for everyone.

This, I think, would be the basis for an effective Reconstruction of the South, because it really would be a true reconstruction of its hopeless, pseudo-feudal antebellum economy.

(CC @Kirook, @Fabius Maximus -- because we approached this matter in another thread.)

 

[Fearless Leader]

I think the bigger issue is getting the Repiblicans to recognize that the entire economy of the south has to change in the aftermath of the civil war. In OTL even the Radicals thought that free labour would be enough to bring about the requisite changes and were hesitant about the government getting too much power.

When working on another civil war timeline I was toying with the idea of Lincoln recognizing this and doing as much as he could to rectify it. My plan began with confiscating and redistributing rebel plantations but it didn't stop there. Though the government was within its rights to confiscate the plantations without remuneration, to avoid charges of tyranny Lincoln ordered that market rates be paid. Only this money was not paid to the former rebels but rather served as a reconstruction fund to which communities could apply for local repairs and improvements. Though this wouldn't be a panacea it would go much further than OTL towards addressing the economic problems facing the south.

 

[Mikestone8]

I think the bigger issue is getting the Repiblicans to recognize that the entire economy of the south has to change in the aftermath of the civil war. In OTL even the Radicals thought that free labour would be enough to bring about the requisite changes and were hesitant about the government getting too much power.

When working on another civil war timeline I was toying with the idea of Lincoln recognizing this and doing as much as he could to rectify it. My plan began with confiscating and redistributing rebel plantations but it didn't stop there. Though the government was within its rights to confiscate the plantations without remuneration, to avoid charges of tyranny Lincoln ordered that market rates be paid. Only this money was not paid to the former rebels but rather served as a reconstruction fund to which communities could apply for local repairs and improvements. Though this wouldn't be a panacea it would go much further than OTL towards addressing the economic problems facing the south.

How the heck does Lincoln (or anyone else) get Congress to fund anything like that when they already have the war to pay for?

In order for any scheme to have any chance of acceptance, it must be one that doesn't cost money.

 

[GeographyDude]

One of the major mistakes made by the Founding Fathers (in my humble opinion), was giving life time terms to SCJ's. Limiting their time on the bench would have allowed for fresh opinion on a more frequent timescale.

This is an improvement, but it doesn't go far enough. Most likely we'll still have SCOTUS not using the 14th Amendment to strike down racially discriminatory laws, but instead using the 14th in support of corporate personhood just like OTL.

 

[GeographyDude]

. . . The Supreme Court really did a lot to undermine the ability of the Fourteenth Amendment to serve its intended purpose, specifically in the Slaughterhouse Cases (1873) and US v Cruikshank (1875), . . . the first two noted examples were both 5-4 decisions, you could change a few seats on the court and stop this poor trend. . .

5 to 4 decisions definitely present some branch point potential.

All the same, throughout it's more than two hundred years of history, the Supreme Court can be viewed as a conservative institution, and even as a reactionary and regressive institution. I'd say it's formalistic. You get a collection of nerds who care intensely about abstract standards, but not so much about how these abstract standards connect to the actual living, breathing world. Well, I'm a nerd, too, but not this kind of nerd.

 

[GeographyDude]

. . . lots of people nowadays have an instinct that tells them "punish the evil slavers! Bloody justice!" -- but this instinct is wrong. All thoughts of vengeance must be discarded before any effective Reconstruction can be conceived of. The paramount goal must be to create a postbellum South that is best equipped to exist harmoniously and to prosper. This means minimising any resentment, and that means very deliberately saying "the whole secession and the whole war were terribly unfortunate things, and slavery was a historical error, and now that is behind us. A new era dawns, we begin with a clean slate."

Love it!

It's shades of Lincoln from his Second Inaugural Address: " . . With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, . . "