Reconstruction Under Lincoln

[BELFAST]

A bit pedantic, no? The defeated party in the Civil War managed to regain and completely solidify political control and nullify every major attempt at social or political transformation in the postbellum south. That doesn’t exactly constitute success. How to win the peace was the primary focus of Congressional debates for over a decade. If they thought it wasn’t over when tenuous American authority was re-established, why should we?

It depends on how you define success.
The main goal was to reunite the nation and make sure no state even attempted to succeed again.
In that goal, it was a massive success.
In terms of human rights for African Americans, it was a miserable failure.
I do not think human rights was something they gave a dam about.
Union was restored and slavery has gone. Those were the only issues they cared about post-civil war.
Should they have paid attention to civil rights, Yes. they should.
Even the limited improvements to civil rights after the 1960s were nixed by the war on drugs.

 

[CHKeeley]

In terms of human rights for African Americans, it was a miserable failure.
I do not think human rights was something they gave a dam about.
Union was restored and slavery has gone. Those were the only issues they cared about post-civil war.

Who are "they" though? You seem to be trying to argue that no serious American political faction in Washington gave a damn about anything other than readmitting southern states in to the Union and preventing secessionist sentiments from continuing. This just isn't the case. If it was, then nobody would have had any issue with Johnsonian Reconstruction at all, because it was simply the fastest way of reintegrating southern states. Instead, this gave the Radical Republicans a mandate to attempt to remake the southern states into something approaching a Republican vision. Free soil, free labor, free men, and the ascendancy of forces other than the planter class. This course was attempted for over a decade and even up through Grant the entire question of Reconstruction was not simply how to admit them back into the Union, but how to destroy the political forces of Redeemerism and the Democrats in general.

The debate about human rights is not us projecting modern sensibilities onto historical figures. The struggles around 'Radical Reconstruction' was literally about how to ensure freedmen/scalawag/carpetbagger ascendancy over the forces of the old South. If nobody gave a damn about human rights, why did Thaddeus Stevens feel the need to declare that he was, "[...] for negro suffrage in every rebel State. If it be just, it should not be denied; if it be necessary, it should be adopted; if it be a punishment to traitors, they deserve it." Why did they attempt to impeach Johnson over grievances about how Reconstruction was handled? Why even draft the Wade-Davis Manifesto and fight Lincoln on the issue of a lenient Reconstruction if their plans were nothing more than abolition and reintegration. Many members of Congress were deeply concerned about trying to remake the South into something new which included civil liberties for African Americans and the destruction of the former Confederate's political power. Of course, it failed but you can't argue in any way that nobody cared out it. The entire politics of Reconstruction were about these issues.

 

[BELFAST]

Who are "they" though? You seem to be trying to argue that no serious American political faction in Washington gave a damn about anything other than readmitting southern states in to the Union and preventing secessionist sentiments from continuing. This just isn't the case. If it was, then nobody would have had any issue with Johnsonian Reconstruction at all, because it was simply the fastest way of reintegrating southern states. Instead, this gave the Radical Republicans a mandate to attempt to remake the southern states into something approaching a Republican vision. Free soil, free labor, free men, and the ascendancy of forces other than the planter class. This course was attempted for over a decade and even up through Grant the entire question of Reconstruction was not simply how to admit them back into the Union, but how to destroy the political forces of Redeemerism and the Democrats in general.

The debate about human rights is not us projecting modern sensibilities onto historical figures. The struggles around 'Radical Reconstruction' was literally about how to ensure freedmen/scalawag/carpetbagger ascendancy over the forces of the old South. If nobody gave a damn about human rights, why did Thaddeus Stevens feel the need to declare that he was, "[...] for negro suffrage in every rebel State. If it be just, it should not be denied; if it be necessary, it should be adopted; if it be a punishment to traitors, they deserve it." Why did they attempt to impeach Johnson over grievances about how Reconstruction was handled? Why even draft the Wade-Davis Manifesto and fight Lincoln on the issue of a lenient Reconstruction if their plans were nothing more than abolition and reintegration. Many members of Congress were deeply concerned about trying to remake the South into something new which included civil liberties for African Americans and the destruction of the former Confederate's political power. Of course, it failed but you can't argue in any way that nobody cared out it. The entire politics of Reconstruction were about these issues.

Perhaps I should have said the people in power only cared about reuniting the country.
The were other factions who wanted to better conditions for African Americans. They do not have the influence needed to change the policy.
A different reconstruction policy could mean instead of a lost cause you could have ongoing efforts long term to rebel against the USA.

 

[CHKeeley]

Perhaps I should have said the people in power only cared about reuniting the country.
The were other factions who wanted to better conditions for African Americans. They do not have the influence needed to change the policy.

I don't mean to belabor the point, but this is not true. The Radical Republicans held the reins of power, and these are the very people I am talking about. They held significant political power and influence for over a decade. I'm not talking about minor protest groups outside Congress, the folks I am speaking of held a majority in Congress. The period from 1866 to 1877 isn't labelled Radical Reconstruction for nothing.

 

[Mikestone8]

I don't mean to belabor the point, but this is not true. The Radical Republicans held the reins of power, and these are the very people I am talking about. They held significant political power and influence for over a decade. I'm not talking about minor protest groups outside Congress, the folks I am speaking of held a majority in Congress. The period from 1866 to 1877 isn't labelled Radical Reconstruction for nothing.

But the Radical ascendancy was triggered mostly by Southern behaviour in sending a whole bunch of leading Confederates to Congress, which together with other things like the Black Codes, created a quite reasonable fear that they would start another rebellion tomorrow should they get the chance. But this was temporary. It soon became clear that the ex-Rebs really had given up on secession, so that there was no pressing reason to exclude them from power in the South.

Note that the Ku-Klux Acts were something of a last fling. They were quickly followed by the ending of the Freedman's Bureau and the lifting of the political disabilities imposed by Sec 3 of the 14th Amendment. Reconstruction continued for a few more years under its own momentum, but, as people up North steadily lost interest, the outcome was only a matter of time.

 

[CHKeeley]

But the Radical ascendancy was triggered mostly by Southern behaviour in sending a whole bunch of leading Confederates to Congress, which together with other things like the Black Codes, created a quite reasonable fear that they would start another rebellion tomorrow should they get the chance. But this was temporary. It soon became clear that the ex-Rebs really had given up on secession, so that there was no pressing reason to exclude them from power in the South.

Note that the Ku-Klux Acts were something of a last fling. They were quickly followed by the ending of the Freedman's Bureau and the lifting of the political disabilities imposed by Sec 3 of the 14th Amendment. Reconstruction continued for a few more years under its own momentum, but, as people up North steadily lost interest, the outcome was only a matter of time.

Sure, and I pretty much make this exact point in a previous response on this threat to someone else. I’m not sure how this comment is addressing what I said in the quoted bit though. BELFAST is arguing that no faction in power gave a damn about anything other than reintegration. I point to the radical ascendancy for over a decade to disprove that notion. Explaining the reasons for the radical ascendancy ultimately confirm that one did exist, and so are more of a support to what I wrote that any qualifier or refutation. Unless of course I’m just misinterpreting you!

 

[jmc247]

But the Radical ascendancy was triggered mostly by Southern behaviour in sending a whole bunch of leading Confederates to Congress, which together with other things like the Black Codes, created a quite reasonable fear that they would start another rebellion tomorrow should they get the chance. But this was temporary. It soon became clear that the ex-Rebs really had given up on secession, so that there was no pressing reason to exclude them from power in the South.

Note that the Ku-Klux Acts were something of a last fling. They were quickly followed by the ending of the Freedman's Bureau and the lifting of the political disabilities imposed by Sec 3 of the 14th Amendment. Reconstruction continued for a few more years under its own momentum, but, as people up North steadily lost interest, the outcome was only a matter of time.

The radical ascendancy was mainly about the northern realization that your average southerner still considered themselves Confederate after the war. The Union Army realized this and news of it spread fast across the North. But, yes it dissipated when they realized that didn’t mean they intended to pull out of the Union again.

 

[Seandineen]

Moderate ex confederates like Wade Hampton could have been of use. Hampton said It was stupid to deny a black man a vote forever.
In Tennessee and Lousiana there was even an assocaition of former Slave holders of African decent.
Nuture that elite, and you will not have Southern blacklash, or the corruption real of imagined of reconstruction.

 

[CHKeeley]

Moderate ex confederates like Wade Hampton could have been of use. Hampton said It was stupid to deny a black man a vote forever.
In Tennessee and Lousiana there was even an assocaition of former Slave holders of African decent.
Nuture that elite, and you will not have Southern blacklash, or the corruption real of imagined of reconstruction.

The case of Wade Hampton is interesting. He acknowledged that the cat was out of the bag and that black emancipation and suffrage had to be reckoned with, but he did not give up his ultimate aims of defending and rehabilitating the Confederacy and ousting the Republican Party. He may have said that about the black vote, but his strategy was not to work with the Republican party, it was to convince black people that they should vote Democrat and their lives would be better without the radicals. Of course, this failed miserably and he wasn't able to garner any notable proportion of the black vote at all. So he eventually veered right and became a Redeemerist leader in his state. With this being said, Hampton specifically won't be of use and could not be courted because he was dedicated to an anti-Republican project as soon as the war ended. He was moderate only in his pragmatism and belief that black suffrage could be used to remove Republicans from southern legislatures. The only way you can nurture them in defeat is to acquiesce and suppress black suffrage among other things... which of course is completely anathema to Congress and the northern public. Reconstruction was relatively lenient through the Johnson period, and yet southerners didn't come to the bargaining table - they tried to force Republicans out where they could which created a mandate for the radical Republicans in the first place. Tricky situation, and there really aren't any moderates to appeal to that doesn't involve a type of Reconstruction completely unacceptable to the North after the vast bloodletting that just occurred.

 

[Seandineen]

You may have a point. It seemed Hampton, was a moderate. If you read Philp Tucker's Black in Grey uniforms, there is a great focus on the franchise as a reward.
Intriguing.

 

[Aisha Clan-Clan]

More done on reconstruction but it still fails. More disruption/shaking up of the old older plus somewhat more spending on education means ttl's *great migration sped up a bit to 1910-40 roughly instead of 1920-50. Well, would be more of a *great migration given the chances of dixie desegregating that muvh earlier than OTL.

One note, with Lincoln's wondering about colonization expect Grant after 1868 to accept the dominican republic's offer of annexation, with future implications come 1898 as a direct butterfly. It doesn't mean you get visible colonizaiton or anything more than, like a few tens of thousands of american blacks moving to cuba/the dr/pr but the idea's there.

 

[Seandineen]

Haiti, and The Dominican Republic as states! Holy cats what a wonderful idea!