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

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?

I am not so sure of the Democrats collapsing if the Republicans gain in the South. In fact, I think states such as Ohio Indiana and even perhaps Illinois would become Democratic leaning states (Copperheads + racial "moderates" = win).
 
What are the odds of earlier greater industrialization in the South? . . .
Earlier for the South, which could have been about the same time as the North, right?

And believe it or not, a military government might more easily recognize the right to join a labor union as part of a healthy society than might a civilian government which has all kinds of entrenched corporate interests. I'm reminded of MacArthur in Japan, where he was convinced that Japan had to develop into a liberal democracy, yes, liberal, with such things as education for women, labor unions, and a couple of other similar, seemingly 'liberal,' provisions. He believed this was necessary in order to prevent a future war with Japan.
 
Earlier for the South, which could have been about the same time as the North, right?

And believe it or not, a military government might more easily recognize the right to join a labor union as part of a healthy society than might a civilian government which has all kinds of entrenched corporate interests. I'm reminded of MacArthur in Japan, where he was convinced that Japan had to develop into a liberal democracy, yes, liberal, with such things as education for women, labor unions, and a couple of other similar, seemingly 'liberal,' provisions. He believed this was necessary in order to prevent a future war with Japan.

Why would something that happens 80 years in the future have any bearing on this? And the situation is completely different there is no Soviet Union equivalent waiting to sweep in and take over the American place.
 
Earlier for the South, which could have been about the same time as the North, right?

And believe it or not, a military government might more easily recognize the right to join a labor union as part of a healthy society than might a civilian government which has all kinds of entrenched corporate interests. I'm reminded of MacArthur in Japan, where he was convinced that Japan had to develop into a liberal democracy, yes, liberal, with such things as education for women, labor unions, and a couple of other similar, seemingly 'liberal,' provisions. He believed this was necessary in order to prevent a future war with Japan.

A key difference being your right to join a union at the time wasn't in existence even in the North. No sane civilian government is going to survive treating Johnny Reb better than Northern civilians
 
Destroy the cotton industry? That does make the planter class land-rich but cash-poor, which is a good way to see land getting sold off. Plus more people will want to leave for the north or west.
 
Why would something that happens 80 years in the future have any bearing on this? And the situation is completely different there is no Soviet Union equivalent waiting to sweep in and take over the American place.
Republican generals would likely support Republican pro-labor, pro-business interests. The Republican Party of the late nineteenth century was more pro-union than that of the Harding/Coolidge/Hoover years. High tariffs for industry were just as important as unionized workers.

For military governments in the post-war South, the best policy would be to see cooperation between poor whites and freedmen, and unionization would be one of the best avenues to that. There’d be a lot of liberal policies implemented to encourage Republican control of the South via poor white and black collaboration.
 
Republican generals would likely support Republican pro-labor, pro-business interests. The Republican Party of the late nineteenth century was more pro-union than that of the Harding/Coolidge/Hoover years. High tariffs for industry were just as important as unionized workers.

For military governments in the post-war South, the best policy would be to see cooperation between poor whites and freedmen, and unionization would be one of the best avenues to that. There’d be a lot of liberal policies implemented to encourage Republican control of the South via poor white and black collaboration.


Are the military governments going to be around long enough to make any real difference?

My impression is that Congress was eager to get it all done and dusted before the 1868 elections.
 
A key difference being your right to join a union at the time wasn't in existence even in the North. . .
Labor unions might start off being something the military government feels they merely need to tolerate, perhaps as a counterweight to the planter class.

Then it works out pretty well and the South is actually running ahead of the North in this regard.
 
Why would something that happens 80 years in the future . . .
Because it shows what's humanly possible.

I strongly suspect MacArthur in Japan is significantly above average as far as how well a military government can do, but it doesn't have to be the only, single example.
 
Labor unions might start off being something the military government feels they merely need to tolerate, perhaps as a counterweight to the planter class.

Then it works out pretty well and the South is actually running ahead of the North in this regard.

A world in which the labor unions get any power whatsoever is a world where the plantation system quickly collapses, leading to at best the rise of small holdings that would turn laborers into compeditors... And fierce ones at that given the weakness of the local economy. Cash crops don't scale down well, after all.
 
A world in which the labor unions get any power whatsoever is a world where the plantation system quickly collapses, leading to at best the rise of small holdings that would turn laborers into compeditors... And fierce ones at that given the weakness of the local economy. Cash crops don't scale down well, after all.


We can probably assume that, save in a few odd corners, these smallholders would be virtually all white. In areas with substantial white populations, the Freedmen's right to land could not be protected any better than their right to vote was OTL.
 

samcster94

Banned
Destroy the cotton industry? That does make the planter class land-rich but cash-poor, which is a good way to see land getting sold off. Plus more people will want to leave for the north or west.
Well, it was in a constant state of deflation OTL.
 
We can probably assume that, save in a few odd corners, these smallholders would be virtually all white. In areas with substantial white populations, the Freedmen's right to land could not be protected any better than their right to vote was OTL.

Indeed. Though, philosophically you'd actually end up closer to the Jeffersonian idea of the self-sufficient small farmers that was held so highly by antibellum Southern culture, ironically making a region closer to said whites' ideals. Without the plantation system and the financial relations created by share cropping, the Market revolution probably comes even slower to the region. The question remains though; where would the unwanted and (in terms of labor) unneeded blacks go?
 
Indeed. Though, philosophically you'd actually end up closer to the Jeffersonian idea of the self-sufficient small farmers that was held so highly by antibellum Southern culture, ironically making a region closer to said whites' ideals. Without the plantation system and the financial relations created by share cropping, the Market revolution probably comes even slower to the region. The question remains though; where would the unwanted and (in terms of labor) unneeded blacks go?


A lot of them might have gone north - which may have been an important factor in insuring that it didn't happen.<g>
 
The South was a third world country for a long time, maybe the North was, too, but for not as long.

I mean, just look at nutritional diseases for crying out loud.
 
And the fact that we're being held down by impersonal forces, again, such as the grain elevators (wholesalers) and railroads, can stick in a person's craw.

And can lead to displaced anger in scapegoating
 
A lot of them might have gone north - which may have been an important factor in insuring that it didn't happen.<g>

That's a possability... assuming the North would take them without local hostility. I mean, the poor Northern mechanic isen't likely to take to kindly to a sudden influx of people trying to compete with him form jobs, if the reaction to other groups of cheap-labor immigration is any indication. I imagine, while less attractive in terms of economic prospects, the West might be a great deal more attractive for African-Americans seeking to continue the agricultural/rural lifestyle that they're used to and live in a less hostile social environment. Particularly if the U.S government can get away with having them take Native American land.

The South was a third world country for a long time, maybe the North was, too, but for not as long.

I mean, just look at nutritional diseases for crying out loud.

So was literally everywhere, if we're going by 1st world standards of the modern day or even by the 30's-40's.
 
That's a possability... assuming the North would take them without local hostility. I mean, the poor Northern mechanic isen't likely to take to kindly to a sudden influx of people trying to compete with him form jobs, if the reaction to other groups of cheap-labor immigration is any indication. I imagine, while less attractive in terms of economic prospects, the West might be a great deal more attractive for African-Americans seeking to continue the agricultural/rural lifestyle that they're used to and live in a less hostile social environment. Particularly if the U.S government can get away with having them take Native American land.

No trouble about taking Native American land, but homesteading generally required you to have some money for animals and equipment, whereas the average Freedman would have only the clothes he stood up in.
 
No trouble about taking Native American land, but homesteading generally required you to have some money for animals and equipment, whereas the average Freedman would have only the clothes he stood up in.
Ideally though with a better Reconstruction part of that is an expanded Freedmen's Bureau that would make up for some of that.
 
Top