Reconstruction Under Lincoln

[SlyDessertFox]

This. Lincoln was a moderate yes, but the thing is the South did not give a damn about moderation. They were hard-right reactionaries, and weren’t going to willingly give an inch. Lincoln’s views went harder as time went on, you can see this in his wartime policies from civilian property to emancipation. The same IMO will be true of post-war Reconstruction. He’ll start lenient. Then when the South gets to the mass murder, terrorism, and every other thing the South did he’ll be 100% behind Grant marching troops in.

You can also see this with other Republicans during Reconstruction. Grant was pretty sympathetic to Johnson at the start of reconstruction-by the time he was president he was waging a full on war against the Klan in the South and was championing radical reconstruction. The South is not going to respond well to even moderate reconstruction, and it is going to prompt a change in strategy.

What troops though?

A decade after Appomattox the US Army was down to about 30,000 men, only about 3,000 of whom were in the South - nowhere near enough to police everything from Chesapeake Bay to the Rio Grande. And even in the {unlikely) event of the whole Army being brought back east, it could not remain there for any length of time, as western settlers etc would have to be protected.

And even were this to somehow happen, the Kluxers would only do what they did OTL in 1871-2 - lie low for a spell until most of the troops went away again.

Military reconstruction was feasible while the Union had a million or more troops in the South , but not once 99 percent of them had collected their bounty money and returned home.

Well, an interesting point of departure here is Johnson's position and his policy towards reconstruction and the radicals in Congress likely emboldened the south to be even more resistant and more willing to hold out. Potentially if the federal government is acting uniformly from 1865 onwards through at least 1869, there is a bit less oxygen for southern massive resistance to build up to a point where it cannot be extinguished.

 

[jmc247]

You can also see this with other Republicans during Reconstruction. Grant was pretty sympathetic to Johnson at the start of reconstruction-by the time he was president he was waging a full on war against the Klan in the South and was championing radical reconstruction. The South is not going to respond well to even moderate reconstruction, and it is going to prompt a change in strategy.

The Klan didn’t fully represent Southern opinion, but the inherent problem with military occupation is it divides up society into those who either fully collaborate or those who fight the occupation.

The longer it goes on the more radical opinion gets on either of those two ends. Then there is everyone else who is stuck in the middle who are invisible and rendered irrelevant.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

The Klan didn’t fully represent Southern opinion, but the inherent problem with military occupation is it divides up society into those who either fully collaborate or those who fight the occupation.

The longer it goes on the more radical opinion gets on either of those two ends. Then there is everyone else who is stuck in the middle who are invisible and rendered irrelevant.

Most French in WW2 were neither hard core partisans against the German occupier or collaborators and yet from the outside they are the only sides one can see. That doesn’t mean they are the only two sides that exist though.

I'm not really sure what this has to do with what I said regarding how Lincoln's own opinion would evolve as violent resistance to reconstruction got under way in the south?

 

[jmc247]

I'm not really sure what this has to do with what I said regarding how Lincoln's own opinion would evolve as violent resistance to reconstruction got under way in the south?

I am saying I agree with you unless Lincoln fully tosses the occupation of the South by the wayside relatively quickly as in by 1868.

The occupation itself radicalized both sides of the coin because it shut out the moderates including in the South.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

I am saying I agree with you unless Lincoln fully tosses the occupation of the South by the wayside relatively quickly as in by 1868.

The occupation itself radicalized both sides of the coin because it shut out the moderates including in the South.

Ah okay, I get your meaning now.

 

[wcv215]

The Klan didn’t fully represent Southern opinion, but the inherent problem with military occupation is it divides up society into those who either fully collaborate or those who fight the occupation.

The longer it goes on the more radical opinion gets on either of those two ends. Then there is everyone else who is stuck in the middle who are invisible and rendered irrelevant.

That’s bullshit. The Klan didn’t represent the entire south, but it represented the vast majority. And the Klan was created and started its campaign of murder and terror under Johnson, the most lenient asshole in the country. The idea it got “radicalized” by too radical a Reconstruction is utter tosh.

 

[jmc247]

That’s bullshit. The Klan didn’t represent the entire south, but it represented the vast majority. And the Klan was created and started its campaign of murder and terror under Johnson, the most lenient asshole in the country. The idea it got “radicalized” by too radical a Reconstruction is utter tosh.

The vast majority certainly didn’t want blacks to vote, but were leery about violence to accomplish such an end. The 1868 GOP platform was leaving the issue of black suffrage up to the states in the North and West, but up to federal power in the South.

Had Lincoln’s vision post Appomattox or reconstruction happened it would have fully been left up to the states and yes most African Americans would have been left without the franchise though not all. It would have been easier to slowly work towards the full franchise in the late 19 and early 20s centuries though.

 

[Mikestone8]

Had Lincoln’s vision post Appomattox or reconstruction happened it would have fully been left up to the states and yes most African Americans would have been left without the franchise though not all. It would have been easier to slowly work towards the full franchise in the late 19 and early 20s centuries though.

But Southern whites would still not want Blacks to vote, and Northern whites would still mostly not give a hoot.So I don't see when any pressure too extend the franchise would come.

 

[Hood]

Well Lincoln was involved in the Linconia Plan, which was his administration's plan to settle Freed Slaves in modern day Panama. So that might change things.

Linconia - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

While Lincoln had been a supporter of colonisation for much of his life, this increasingly changed during the civil war, mainly through interaction with Douglass who was strongly against it. At any rate he was always (IIRC) only for voluntary colonisation, so unlikely to get very far one way or another.

 

[Mikestone8]

You can also see this with other Republicans during Reconstruction. Grant was pretty sympathetic to Johnson at the start of reconstruction

As indeed were most Republicans They didn't really turn against him until he vetoed the Civil Rights and Freedmen's Bureau bills, and when they were modified to meet his objections, proceeded to veto them again. At this point the GOP more or less gave up on him.

 

[jmc247]

But Southern whites would still not want Blacks to vote, and Northern whites would still mostly not give a hoot.So I don't see when any pressure too extend the franchise would come.

The gradual progress position at that time was there should be a big effort to educate the freedmen to get them off the plantations and armed with that in a generation or two they would have better playing jobs and an understanding of what the state is their rights and responsibilities to the state is and it’s rights and responsibilities to them.

The Readjuster Party in VA pushed for huge increases in state funding for education for the freedmen using as their argument Lee’s testimony to Congress for the liberation through education and jobs argument.

 

[Amadeus]

I think the most successful outcome is that Reconstruction unfolds more smoothly under Lincoln's leadership, with a better outcome for African-Americans at least in the short term. Lincoln was a much better politician than Johnson, so I could see him building a not insubstantial political base for the Republican Party in the South. If Grant is still elected in 1868, he may have a more successful Presidency if he decides to consult former President Lincoln on policy decisions and cabinet appointments. The result is that Hayes may win a clear majority in 1876, and Reconstruction lasts another four years before a Democrat is elected in 1880 and decides to end it.

 

[Mikestone8]

The gradual progress position at that time was there should be a big effort to educate the freedmen to get them off the plantations and armed with that in a generation or two they would have better playing jobs and an understanding of what the state is their rights and responsibilities to the state is and it’s rights and responsibilities to them.

Who pays for this and how? OTL, the Southern States wouldn't even fund decent schools for *white* kids, never mind Blacks.

Hayes may win a clear majority in 1876, and Reconstruction lasts another four years before a Democrat is elected in 1880 and decides to end it.

T.his would only affect two States, SC and LA. All the others had already been "redeemed" even before 1877. And even thiise two would probably soon have followed

 

[jmc247]

Who pays for this and how? OTL, the Southern States wouldn't even fund decent schools for *white* kids, never mind Blacks.

You just hit on what killed the Readjuster Party as well as their plans. They grifted off federal money and that of the industrialist for awhile, but once that started drying up they were shit out of luck.

It wasn’t until the FDR to post WW2 era (federal and state) that you had the kind of money again to throw around at such a plan.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

T.his would only affect two States, SC and LA. All the others had already been "redeemed" even before 1877. And even thiise two would probably soon have followed

That doesn't have to be the case in this alternate scenario.

Anyway, at the very least I do not see how reconstruction ends without blacks getting the right to vote. From a purely political perspective, Republican politicians can very easily make the case that freeing the slaves while not giving them the right to vote just grants the southern plantation aristocracy even more power and representation in Congress than they had before the war, given those freed slaves are now being counted as full people for representation purposes. The only way to deny them that is to ensure these freed slaves have the power of the ballot.

 

[jmc247]

That doesn't have to be the case in this alternate scenario.

Anyway, at the very least I do not see how reconstruction ends without blacks getting the right to vote. From a purely political perspective, Republican politicians can very easily make the case that freeing the slaves while not giving them the right to vote just grants the southern plantation aristocracy even more power and representation in Congress than they had before the war, given those freed slaves are now being counted as full people for representation purposes. The only way to deny them that is to ensure these freed slaves have the power of the ballot.

These conversations came up in Congress in the back and forth. The old elite of the South no longer ruled it post war though had some influence. Political power was in the hands of the federal government and who they wanted enfranchised, but it was really the rise of the poor whites that was new. They unlike the old money had nothing to lose other then their lives and after years of war were willing to lose that.

I have a fair idea on what in the northern south at least would have accepted without a big push back. It’s slightly more than what Lincoln laid out in his final speech, but not a lot more. As for the Cotton States that is a different ball of wax and I can’t fully answer that question.

 

[octaviuz]

Had Lincoln’s vision post Appomattox or reconstruction happened it would have fully been left up to the states and yes most African Americans would have been left without the franchise though not all. It would have been easier to slowly work towards the full franchise in the late 19 and early 20s centuries though.

Again, when night riders burn a few USCT veterans out of town the Feds will feel obligated to intervene (assuming this is in the first couple of years after the end of the war, before the occupation became irrelevant).
Enough of that and maybe Lincoln starts considering the possibility of land reform (mostly to poor whites) which I honestly think is the long-term solution (white Republicans did actually exist but a lot of them melted away in the face of the Redeemers, if they have land they know they'll lose, maybe they're emboldened)

 

[Mikestone8]

Anyway, at the very least I do not see how reconstruction ends without blacks getting the right to vote. From a purely political perspective, Republican politicians can very easily make the case that freeing the slaves while not giving them the right to vote just grants the southern plantation aristocracy even more power and representation in Congress than they had before the war, given those freed slaves are now being counted as full people for representation purposes. The only way to deny them that is to ensure these freed slaves have the power of the ballot.

Surely if that is to happen it would have to *begin* with the right to vote.

It would require an Amendment, and once readmitted without it (or with it limited to a comparative few) the South can block such an Amendment even if all Northern States ratify - which is *not* a given. So if it's not done at the outset I don't quite see how it gets done at all.

 

[Wendell]

Lincoln, I think, would have successfully struck a balance of the compering interests and approaches to Reconstruction which would have slowed the pace of civil rights overall, while largely avoiding the reversals of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era in OTL.

 

[Hugh Third of Five]

That’s bullshit. The Klan didn’t represent the entire south, but it represented the vast majority.

It had popular support among southern whites. Don't forget that a large portion of the southern population was black, and they certainly did not sympathize with the Ku Klux Klan. Between the black population and the minority of whites who did support civil rights, supporters of civil rights laws were competive electorally in many states. There's a reason the KKK turned to terrorism, and why Dixiecrats focused on restricting black access to the ballot box once they got back in control.