@Red_Galiray it would certainly be most unrealistic under Johnston, but Lincoln is perennially the coalition builder, and I think he would see the long term enough to understand the value of detaching the cause of civil service reform from the cause of black disenfranchisement. If citizens that would otherwise be willing to be socialised to integration have no functional avenue to address their legitimate concerns and practice their rights, then they'll throw their lot in with the same lunatics that had just pulled them through years of Hell, to legitimise attacking officials and intimidating black voters. Addressing the flaws of the civil service can make the government more legitimate, which with make it stronger, and thus make Reconstruction faster and more solid.
You're completely right, of course. Corruption is a problem we'll have to tackle sooner or later, and Lincoln was quite annoyed at office seekers... at the same time, he made extensive use of patronage for political reasons (Republicans, after his election, said he couldn't be opposed because he controlled all offices). I do think Honest Abe would be more inclined to do something to assure integrity in Southern Reconstruction.
Liberal Republicanism was largely driven by the egregrious corruption scandals during the Grant Administration (like the Whiskey Ring), most of which had nothing to do with Reconstruction.
I meant that Southern regimes didn't care that deeply about civil service reform because they were fighting for their very survival.
If they escape on their own, fine, but be prepared that they would write memoirs to spread ATL Lost Cause. But if they are captured, they should be sent to Russia like the way Napoleon was sent to St Helena, especially ITTL the choices would likely be between execution or exile.
IOTL, the news about Jefferson Davis' conditions in the jail managed to turn him into a martyr. ITTL, if we quickly ships him to Siberia, nobody would hear about him again, he would "disappear".
Some kind of Lost Cause memoir is impossible to avoid. Ultimately, most Southern soldiers will want to believe that they fought nobly and valiantly, as a way to conciliate their bitter defeat. If it doesn't come from the Confederate leader it'll come from its soldiers, and we can't exile or execute every single traitor. The worst rebels, the leading traitors, must be dealt with harshly... they must be told they can either go to a port and part to Europe, never to return, or go to the gallows and part to Hell.
In states with sufficiently large black majorities, blacks would have greater chance to compete without Federal Patronage. For starter, they would be able to win a free and fair election on their own (without patronage or some other unsustainable measures like disfranchising ex-Confederates) by relying on their majorities.
Next, the fact that TTL State Republicans being dominated by blacks means that policies that help them such as freedman education or land reform would be more likely to be passed and implemented - since TTL Republicans would no longer be able to take Black votes for granted. However, since White Republicans would still hold the key positions of power, there is zero chance that they would throw whites under the bus. Result: everyone, blacks and whites, would be better off.
Finally, as I said, it would be much harder for White Supremacists to overthrown a Reconstructed government in a black majority state (with sufficiently large majority I mean) defended by black-majority state militia.
* Regarding sufficiently large black majority, I mean that the majority should be large enough that it would result in a black majority state militia/National Guard.
Well, I agree, it's just that only two states can end up with a Black majority, South Carolina and Mississippi. What about the rest, then?
Well one thing that doesn't sound out of place in the 19th Century US are ham fisted political compromises.
Indeed... I could see something like a compromise that requires Southern states to guarantee congressional seats and legislative representation to African Americans in exchange of an end to Federal intervention (except to stop violence, of course). That would not be complete justice (courts, education and employers would probably still treat African Americans unfairly and they and other Republicans would be relegated to a permanent minority), but in the long run if their civil and political rights are protected when populism sweeps the country, the consequences could be better. Besides, such an agreement would basically be a 19th century version of the modern minority-majority districts mandated by the Civil Rights Acts.
Frankly speaking, this reads more like a revenge fantasy than an actual option. There were voices (like James A. Garfield's) to exile Confederate leaders, but the idea of exiling them to Russia is incredibly uncharacteristic for U.S. leaders of the time.
Like I said, I think a semi-voluntary exile of several Confederate leaders can be achieved, but the government actually rounding them up and sending them to Siberia would make most Americans recoil in disgust, chief among them Lincoln.
True enough. Though one concern I have with this is that it will end with the same "Separate but equal" nonsense of OTL (and I'm sure many Southern politicians ITTL would be aiming for that with this system).
I think a more radical Supreme Court could decide that separate but equal only applies with regards to private interests (so, a store or bank can discriminate against Blacks as long as they have their own stores and banks to turn to) but not to public accommodations (transport, education, government services). Charles Sumner basically agreed with something like this, if I remember his Civil Rights bill correctly.
And there lies the issue. Why would Lincoln do this? In alternate history, there is an effort to at least mimic the thought process and characteristics of historical figures or provide justification in the case of a changed behavior. ITTL, Lincoln has more radical racial views, but he hasn't been made more autocratic or despotic in his treatment of rebel officials and officers.
I agree... I simply don't think Lincoln would act that way in any Timeline. Rounding up rebels and sending them to an "icy hell" such as Siberia seems like the work of a despot, not of a constitutionally elected leader. Furthermore, though most Republicans, especially ITTL, would not object to some punitive measures, the impetus just isn't there... most moderates would probably want to just move on and the radicals are more preocuppied with carrying out their agenda.
Would President Lincoln not be decried as an unnatural tyrant who inflicted the cruelest persecution on his opponent, who indulged a spirit of the most ferocious vengeance and sold his own countrymen to a foreign despot to be cast out into the cold and shown less compassion than is accorded to even the lowest dog?
Exactly. And remember, Breckinridge is more loved than Davis ever was. Not many people would object to the Union hanging the worst of the Confederacy, such as Forrest or the "Clawhammer", but executing or exiling Breckinridge or others who, in the Southern people's eyes, don't deserve such punishment could cause a second rebellion.
