What could have led to a more successful Reconstruction, and how would that impact us today?

Any way to make Reconstruction more successful and have African-Americans stay as a voting base in the South? What kind of impact would this have on America? Would race relations in America be healthier today?
 
Last edited:
. . . and have African-Americans stay as a voting base in the South? . . .
Some on our site have argued that the North got what it wanted by preserving the Union, and because of war weariness, wasn't going to do much more than it did.

I think there's a definite possibility in winning over poor and middle-class whites by good government and a growing economy. In particular, I think you have to effectively take on the quasi-monopolies preying on southern farmers, such as grain elevators (wholesalers) and railroads. Wish I knew more about the specifics of pre-War economics and agriculture in the South, but definitely think there's some possibility here.
 
Some on our site have argued that the North got what it wanted by preserving the Union, and because of war weariness, wasn't going to do much more than it did.

I'd agree with that. The North didn't like slavery but as a whole wasn't particularly interested in civil rights as time went on. I think that perhaps just before reconstruction ends some disaster like another attempted assassination of the President by a group associated with disenfranchising blacks brings the whole thing back into the public conscious
 
I've been thinking about the reconstruction lately for my own TL over in ASB, thinking about this very issue. I'm wondering if the north had implemented a 19th century version of the Marshall Plan (that was used to rebuild Europe after WW2) how much different things would have been.

After reading several threads about reconstruction, I've become convinced that we learn poorly from history, even on a forum dedicated to history, albeit, alternative in nature. There are those who seem to think a harsher more violent reconstruction against Southerners somehow would bring about a better world today. If this thinking were true, then World War II would never have happened. It would not surprise me to learn that Georges Clemenceau, Prime Minister of France during and after world war I saw the economic devastation and punitive taxation policy practiced against the south and thought something similar could work in punishing Germany for losing WW1. We saw how well that worked out.

A truly reformative Reconstruction would have required a federal government willing to give the poor sharecropper and tenant farmer a better alternative than that which existed following the Civil War, which would have required more banking options than that which was allowed by the Republicans during reconstruction. It would have required a federal government that would have propped up public schools, using federal dollars to decide the curriculum for a couple of generations. It would have required a federal government that would have invested in infrastructure, rebuilding the railroads/canals/ports, creating capital that wouldn't flee north with each quarterly report. In other words a reconstruction that would be better is one that would have creating a rising tide to lift all boats, while educating the children of the South into new ways of thinking about the American Union.
 
I've been thinking about the reconstruction lately for my own TL over in ASB, thinking about this very issue. I'm wondering if the north had implemented a 19th century version of the Marshall Plan (that was used to rebuild Europe after WW2) how much different things would have been.

After reading several threads about reconstruction, I've become convinced that we learn poorly from history, even on a forum dedicated to history, albeit, alternative in nature. There are those who seem to think a harsher more violent reconstruction against Southerners somehow would bring about a better world today. If this thinking were true, then World War II would never have happened. It would not surprise me to learn that Georges Clemenceau, Prime Minister of France during and after world war I saw the economic devastation and punitive taxation policy practiced against the south and thought something similar could work in punishing Germany for losing WW1. We saw how well that worked out.

A truly reformative Reconstruction would have required a federal government willing to give the poor sharecropper and tenant farmer a better alternative than that which existed following the Civil War, which would have required more banking options than that which was allowed by the Republicans during reconstruction. It would have required a federal government that would have propped up public schools, using federal dollars to decide the curriculum for a couple of generations. It would have required a federal government that would have invested in infrastructure, rebuilding the railroads/canals/ports, creating capital that wouldn't flee north with each quarterly report. In other words a reconstruction that would be better is one that would have creating a rising tide to lift all boats, while educating the children of the South into new ways of thinking about the American Union.


I like your ideas here drewmc. Let me just
add that the federal government would have
also had to impose the stick in that it would
have had to pass the equivalent of the 1960's Civil Rights laws prohibiting discrimi-
nation on account of race & guaranting blacks the right to vote & then ENFORCING
such laws.
 
. . . I'm wondering if the north had implemented a 19th century version of the Marshall Plan . . .
Again, may not even require that much money if we could get the quasi-monopolies off the back of farmers. May a Reconstruction government in the South first tries to regulate railroads, and then just eminent domains one of the worse offenders. The other railroads may see the light. Yes, a military government can do things a civilian government can't.

Now, if you want the government to do something active rather than merely remedy monopolies, it can use the new technology of the telegraph to give timely information about market prices.

I do agree with UCB79 that a stick will probably also be needed, especially at election times.
 
How about a more violent end to the Civil War? Instead of Jefferson Davis discouraging guerrilla warfare- he, and the rest of Southern Leadership, plan for it- with the end result being Davis' former cabinet, Confederate Generals, Senators, and Congressmen leading violent and damaging insurrection cells through the South, until finally the Southern Populace grows so weary of the violence they stop supporting them, embrace Northern intervention, activity pursue any remaining Confederate cells, and breathe a sigh of relief when the Federal Government announces Reconstruction to rebuild the entirely shattered, starvation stricken, South?
 
Lincoln isn't shot, planters' estates are broken up and redistributed to poor whites and the freedmen, army is larger and stays in the South longer with a larger cavalry element.
 
Why would the government do any of these things alot of these ideas seem like hindsight to me. How do they identify these problems and do they even care enough to deal with them.
 
Why would the government do any of these things alot of these ideas seem like hindsight to me. How do they identify these problems and do they even care enough to deal with them.
Therein lies the rub. But the question posed by the OP was what could have been done/done better. Realistically much of what I listed would never have happened.
 
Lincoln isn't shot, planters' estates are broken up and redistributed to poor whites and the freedmen, . . .
I'm all in favor of Lincoln living and breaking up the big estates and giving a better deal to both sharecropping whites and newly freed slaves, but . . .

With his ridiculous "Ten Percent Plan," I'm not sure Lincoln would have pulled it off. Yes, really, please look it up.

When 10% of the residents of a state took a pledge of loyalty to the Union, that state presumably got full voting rights in Congress ? ! It had to be one of the most all time generous offers to rebels.

Maybe Lincoln had in mind some complicated good cop-bad cop approach where if there was breaking of the rules such as election time intimidation, that state wouldn't get full representation after all. But assuming this intent on Lincoln's part seems like a real stretch.
 
I'm all in favor of Lincoln living and breaking up the big estates and giving a better deal to both sharecropping whites and newly freed slaves, but . . .

With his ridiculous "Ten Percent Plan," I'm not sure Lincoln would have pulled it off. Yes, really, please look it up.

When 10% of the residents of a state took a pledge of loyalty to the Union, that state presumably got full voting rights in Congress ? ! It had to be one of the most all time generous offers to rebels.

Maybe Lincoln had in mind some complicated good cop-bad cop approach where if there was breaking of the rules such as election time intimidation, that state wouldn't get full representation after all. But assuming this intent on Lincoln's part seems like a real stretch.
This is assuming Lincoln doesn't change his stance once it becomes clear that the South has no intentions to actually afford freedmen their rights as guaranteed by the Constitution. You might recall Lincoln was big on protecting/preserving that. Lincoln will push for as liberal a plan as he think can succeed. That is my read.
 
What are the odds of earlier greater industrialization in the South?

Also, how does this effect politics? Republicans would surely be stronger in the South, but what kind of gains would Democrats make in the North, if any?
 
Also, how does this effect politics? Republicans would surely be stronger in the South, but what kind of gains would Democrats make in the North, if any?

Not much effect - provided that it doesn't cost anything.

Anything requiring Northern voters to pay more taxes - even slightly more - will result in a speedy return to power for the Democrats.
 
This is assuming Lincoln doesn't change his stance once it becomes clear that the South has no intentions to actually afford freedmen their rights as guaranteed by the Constitution.


What rights were those?

At the time of Lincoln's death, the only right they had was not to be slaves - and even that wasn't true everywhere until the 13th Amendment was ratified in Dec 1865. .
 
It would likely change the nature of the Republican party as compared to otl. It is quite likely that more African Amerecans would stay in the South. They might easily become a quite conservative group[

I think it is possible that the Democrats might collapse.

I wonder about a Populist party eventually becoming the second party?
 

samcster94

Banned
How about a more violent end to the Civil War? Instead of Jefferson Davis discouraging guerrilla warfare- he, and the rest of Southern Leadership, plan for it- with the end result being Davis' former cabinet, Confederate Generals, Senators, and Congressmen leading violent and damaging insurrection cells through the South, until finally the Southern Populace grows so weary of the violence they stop supporting them, embrace Northern intervention, activity pursue any remaining Confederate cells, and breathe a sigh of relief when the Federal Government announces Reconstruction to rebuild the entirely shattered, starvation stricken, South?
Well, the idea of the Lost Cause goes out the window then, as there is nothing to romanticize except among hardline racists(even for their time) like Lane, the guy in Oregon(the state that banned black people) who illegally had slaves AFTER the War in OTL.
 
This is assuming Lincoln doesn't change his stance once it becomes clear that the South has no intentions to actually afford freedmen their rights as guaranteed by the Constitution. You might recall Lincoln was big on protecting/preserving that. Lincoln will push for as liberal a plan as he think can succeed. That is my read.
Lincoln might even be planning a pissed off response the public can easily understand --

We give you this good a deal, and this is how you pay us back?

-------

But, I don't want us to be overly optimistic.
 
What rights were those?

At the time of Lincoln's death, the only right they had was not to be slaves - and even that wasn't true everywhere until the 13th Amendment was ratified in Dec 1865. .
The Black Codes (especially "Apprenticeship") laws came pretty damn close to trying to reimpose slavery.
 
Lincoln might even be planning a pissed off response the public can easily understand --

We give you this good a deal, and this is how you pay us back?


He might react rather as Congress did OTL, and recommend something similar to the 14th Amendment, making clear to the South that ratification thereof is a condition for being readmitted. As they haven't had Andrew Johnson egging them on to refuse, they very probably do ratify, in which case they may well be readmitted w/o Black suffrage - a "hot potato" which Congress picked up only reluctantly.
 
Top