What if 40 acres and a mule was carried out ?

not a great idea... those lands are a lot colder, drier, and less fertile than the south. As others on here have mentioned, this could have been done inside the south itself; there was a lot of open land available, although of variable quality. In OTL, there was a distinct 'go south' movement right alongside the 'go west' movement.

Which means they are far less likely to be lynched or cheated out of it. It is at least a possible solution if it is not an ideal one. If there is anything approaching 40 acres and a mule the Blacks will get the worst land not the best.
 
If the "forty acres and a mule" is given in 1875, I think the benefits are dubious. Reconstruction is almost over, and the plantation aristocracy has gained much of its old power. It will be able thwart most benefits although perhaps there is improvement in some states like North Carolina where a Republican coalition might be able to survive. Overall, it is likely to be a bust. There is too much entrenched opposition at that point to overcome.

I don't see freedmen settlement of the Wild West a real option. The land is too unproductive to be a real outlet for southern blacks. And initial settlers will be very isolated and alone - dangerous in dealing with racism. It might lead to a significant minority of blacks in the overall population, but probably limited to 10% and under.

The time to do it is right after the Civil War in 1865-1867. Break up the largest plantation estates. Provide large numbers of free blacks with their own farms in an improved Southern Homestead Act. Invest more in the Freedmen's Bureau to make the transition successful. It won't cure all the problems, but it should be enough to create a significant class of independent farmers, and begin the process of independent capital formation for future local black businesses.

I think we will still see the eventual defeat of Reconstruction in some states, but it could be enough to see successful Reconstruction in other states. These would either be areas where a combination of Unionist White southerners and freed blacks are able to maintain a Republican majority in the Upper South, or black majority states in the Deep South where freed blacks are able to retain power on their own and protected by the Federal government. I think this is going to be limited to around 3-4 states though.

Such a scenario requires a very different President than Andrew Johnson. The window of opportunity is very small. By 1868, any future improvement in the conditions of freedmen depends on the progress already made at that point.

But if we assume that it happens, it has some important effects. First, it prevents the Solid South which guarantees Republican victories for a very long time. Second, the inability of the Democrats to gain the Presidency puts it under a lot of pressure to change that it did not have until the 1960s. The southern wing is simply not as powerful. This doesn't mean an early civil rights era scenario (full civil rights everywhere), but it allows northern Democrat civil rights leaders to enact changes in the party platform much earlier and substantial gains from OTL in some local areas. Third, it will reduce the numbers of the Great Migration, but not eliminate it. The lure of industrial jobs and relative poverty of the South is just too much. Fourth, those southern states that remain competitive or under Republican rule will likely lead to more investment in those states than happened historically. A "new south" that is semi-industrial with better local education is possible - probably in the Upper South, and the cumulative effects from 1865-1965 will be noticeable from OTL. Fifth, the worst aspects of outright racism that occurred after Reconstruction's end (that lead to the Nadir of American Race Relations) will be alleviated if we have examples of economically successful black communities and black participation in local politics that makes them power brokers and dealers.

So much improvement from OTL overall, but no panacea and some Southern states will be just as bad as OTL. But the overall progress from OTL might be 20-30 years or more. The 1920s might be more like the 1950s in the aspect of race relations and civil rights.
 
As to slaves in the economic importance to the south, only in the large cotton plantations was slave labor viable, and with each passing year was becoming less so.

Really?

There's a very interesting dvd called Slavery By Another Name, which details how enormous numbers of Blacks were convicted of various offences and then hired out as convict labour. This went on well into the 20C. Sounds like there was still plenty of demand for slave labour, even if it could no longer be called that.
 
Really?

There's a very interesting dvd called Slavery By Another Name, which details how enormous numbers of Blacks were convicted of various offences and then hired out as convict labour. This went on well into the 20C. Sounds like there was still plenty of demand for slave labour, even if it could no longer be called that.

Free labor? There's ALWAYS a demand for that.

Slave labor that has costs such as food, housing, clothing, medical care, and of course buying new slaves, all while depending on the wildly fluctuating cotton prices globally. Not really after a certain point.
 
Such a scenario requires a very different President than Andrew Johnson.

But if you take away Andrew Johnson, don't you also take away Radical Reconstruction as we know it?

Just about any likely POTUS other than Johnson would have required the South to enfranchise literate Blacks and those who had served in the Union Army, but probably not more - and this would in all likelihood have satisfied enough Republicans to secure readmission of the South. So the Freedmen end up with less than OTL rather than more.
 
I think you have a much better chance of this succeeding in the upper South than the Deep South, you could settle black freedmen in Central/East Tennessee, Kentucky, and the like, sure, the land isnt as good, but it is sparsely populated and they'll be next to the Republican core voters in Appalachia to provide some semblance of a connection and chance of maintaining voting power.
 
If the "forty acres and a mule" is given in 1875, I think the benefits are dubious. Reconstruction is almost over

We should note that Reconstruction ended OTL due to the compromise over the 1876 election, in which Republicans agreed to withdraw federal troops from the South in return for Democratic acceptance of Rutherford Hayes as President.

The "40 acres and a mule" proposal passing is a gigantic butterfly for that election. I suspect it might have led to a backlash (and thus a Democratic victory) but who knows?
 
We should note that Reconstruction ended OTL due to the compromise over the 1876 election, in which Republicans agreed to withdraw federal troops from the South in return for Democratic acceptance of Rutherford Hayes as President.

The "40 acres and a mule" proposal passing is a gigantic butterfly for that election. I suspect it might have led to a backlash (and thus a Democratic victory) but who knows?

True, but Reconstruction would have ended nonetheless that year, as it was a major plank of the Democratic platform. Obviously a African-American homestead program would be a major butterfly; but I do believe the American people had grown tired of Reconstruction politics by that time and were ready to end it. Even with a hypothetical successful homestead program, I'm not sure that the population of the country would continue Reconstruction much passed that date; 1880 by the very latest. They had grown tired and wanted to put the stresses of the war behind them after a decade of peace.
 
We should note that Reconstruction ended OTL due to the compromise over the 1876 election, in which Republicans agreed to withdraw federal troops from the South in return for Democratic acceptance of Rutherford Hayes as President.


It ended then in the last two states - LA and SC.

The other nine Confederate States - plus all the Border States - had already been "redeemed" even before the withdrawal of Federal troops - in many cases long before.

By the time Hayes was inaugurated, there were only those two Radical governments left, both hanging on by their fingernails. And the troops were in any case too few to do much more than occupy the State Capitals and a handful of other places. Their withdrawal was an acknowledgement of failure, but the failure itself had already happened.
 
It ended then in the last two states - LA and SC.

The other nine Confederate States - plus all the Border States - had already been "redeemed" even before the withdrawal of Federal troops - in many cases long before.

By the time Hayes was inaugurated, there were only those two Radical governments left, both hanging on by their fingernails. And the troops were in any case too few to do much more than occupy the State Capitals and a handful of other places. Their withdrawal was an acknowledgement of failure, but the failure itself had already happened.

That and the fact if Hayes wasn't president and Tilden was then Tilden would have withdrawn the troops. After all he would be president then and it was part of his platform.
 
Had the planter class been destroyed by expropriation (a lawful and indeed mild punishment for treason) and the former slaves had security it would have been a lot easier for honest elections to be held in the South.
 
Had the planter class been destroyed by expropriation (a lawful and indeed mild punishment for treason) and the former slaves had security it would have been a lot easier for honest elections to be held in the South.

Why?

The planter class did lose power in the South toward the end of the century, but Southern politics didn't become either less racist or less crooked. So why should dispossessing them a generation earlier have had such an effect?

In any case, you still haven't explained why anyone should bother. The primary aim of Reconstruction was to bring the Southern states back as loyal members of the Union. Wholesale seizures of property (even if constitutionally possible) would scarcely help toward that end. They certainly didn't in Ireland. Promoting Black rights was a means to this end, not (for most people) an objective in itself. And it soon became clear that it was unnecessary for that purpose. It wasn't pursued further simply because it was not worth pursuing.
 
was there anything being considered beyond '40 acres and a mule'? 40 acres is nice, a mule is nice, but that's not enough to start with. Was there any consideration to giving them seeds, equipment, housing, food while waiting for that first crop to come in, etc? If they are taking over former plantation land and turning it into subsistence agriculture, it's not such a hard job, but if they are being given virgin wilderness to transform into a farm, it gets a lot tougher. If they aren't being given the starting equipment/money, then it seems that their incentive to sell out to land speculators goes way up. Or, they might be victimized by predatory banks giving out loans at high interest...
 
was there anything being considered beyond '40 acres and a mule'? 40 acres is nice, a mule is nice, but that's not enough to start with. Was there any consideration to giving them seeds, equipment, housing, food while waiting for that first crop to come in, etc? If they are taking over former plantation land and turning it into subsistence agriculture, it's not such a hard job, but if they are being given virgin wilderness to transform into a farm, it gets a lot tougher. If they aren't being given the starting equipment/money, then it seems that their incentive to sell out to land speculators goes way up. Or, they might be victimized by predatory banks giving out loans at high interest...


Did anyone ever go into it to that extent?

Afaik the expression never represented official policy. It seems to have originated at the end of Sherman's march to the sea, when he installed a large number of slaves who had followed in his train on abandoned land on the Sea Islands. At the same time he received a fresh consignment of mules to replace his exhausted ones, and left the now unwanted mules on the islands along with the unwanted Blacks. I don't suppose anyone in Washington ever thought the matter out in any depth, as there was never any serious intention of extending it to the South in general. .
 

Blue Moon

Banned
Thanks for the comments so far. I realize in order for this to have happened there would have to be a major pod. any more ideas about best and worst case scenarios ? BTW they don't have to take place in 1875 :)
 
I'll quote an old soc.history.what-if post of mine on this subject:

***

Briefly, Stevens wanted the
confiscation of all "rebel" estates of over $10,000 or 200 acres. The
redistribution would give 40 acres to each adult male freedman. What
was left over would be sold to the highest bidder and the proceeds used for
pensions for Union soldiers, partial retirement of the national debt, etc.

Would it have worked? One of the few extended essays in counterfactual
history by a distinguished historian, C. Vann Woodward's "Reconstruction: A
Counterfactual Playback" (in his book _The Future of the Past_) gives good
reasons for skepticism, which I will summarize here:

First, the same Congress that was contemplating helping the freedmen
also made a great show of helping farmers get free land in the west
through the Homestead and other acts. We know the result of that--the
homesteaders got screwed. Land-grant railroads alone got four times as
much land as the homesteaders, and of the patents actually granted to
homesteaders a great many were handed to pawns of speculators and
monopolists. What land bona fide homesteaders *did* get was typically
the worst.

Is there any reason to expect things to have been different in the
South? Remember that nine-tenths of the 394 million acres of "rebel"
land were slated for sale to the highest bidder. This was certainly an
invitation to speculators and monopolists, who might have gotten all the
best land, leaving the freedmen with the worst.

What's more, Congress actually did pass a Southern Homestead Act. There
were 47,700,000 acres of public land in five of the Confederate states in
1861--more than the amount of land set aside for the freedmen under the
hypothetical Stevens Act. The 1866 Southern Homestead Act passed by the
Radicals theoretically made it possible for homesteaders to get *80*
acres--and the Act favored freedmen by excluding ex-Confederates from
homesteading priviliges. Nevertheless, very few ex-slaves participated.
Lack of credit and transportaion are probably to blame for this. Perhaps
the Stevens bill would not have involved as great transportation costs for
the freedmen--they presumably could get the land they had already worked
(although determining just who gets what land would be a considerable
administrative problem, and the people doing the administering would be
white). But there would still be the problem of credit. Land is not
enough. Farmers would, after all, need some money to get by until the
first harvest was in; they would need tools; and they would need some
experience in managing a small farm (I don't think the experience gained by
being part of a work-gang on a plantation is the same thing).

Perhaps the Freedmen's Bureau or some other agencies could have helped
the freedmen to get these things but one questions whether northern
taxpayers, who might be happy enough about confiscating "rebel" estates,
would be willling to finance such help.

And as Woodward points out, some of the very officials who would
adminster the act to guarantee land for black people in the South were
the ones who were supposed to do the same for American Indians in the
West. General Howard, who had headed the Freedmen's Bureau, later
negotiated a treaty with the Apaches. General Sherman moved from
command of the Southern District to the Western District. The result of
course was that white supremacy won out as completely in Arizona as in
Alabama.

Finally, what Woodward really dwells on is the problem of white
resistance--boycotts of the black farmers, outright terror, pressure to
sell farms to white people at nominal prices. In short, the same
pressures that "persuaded" blacks not to exercise rights like voting
would have worked in the area of land ownership as well. Woodward has
some sarcastic fun imagining the most Draconian or "Stalinist" measures
conceivable aginst southern white supremacists and their northen
Copperhead friends. He notes that perhaps Alaska, providentially
purchased from the Russians, could be our Siberia, but doubts that even
this would be enough to deal with millions of people. Anyway, his real
point is that even the Radicals would never have accepted the bloodshed
he thinks an attempt to force land redistribution would cause.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.history.what-if/edq5XylNYrQ/I9g4_t8yfS0J
 
Top