wouldn't 73 be too late for that stuff, both politically and legally? unless there was more "unclaimed" land in the west than i thought
What if President Grant was assassinated early on in his second term by the KKK?
- Thread starter fdas
- Start date
You’re right but I could see them moving to more remote spaces. The Dakotas are still kind of empty. They might not get the best land, but at least they own it. Also, maybe some move to other places like Liberia or even Canada.
There were coloured militia OTL. It made no difference.
Incidentally, what "occupation forces" are we talking about? The tiny peacetime army isn't anywhere near enough to police the South in any effective way.
Also, really weird calling this "revenge fantasy". If LBJ had been assassinated and the Liberals became even more heavy-handed with the South during civil rights, would that be "revenge fantasy"? Doesn't seem like that to me
That relies on the word being spread accurately...
Remember the 1917 'Easter Rising' in Dublin? There were actually supposed to be about ten times as many rebels involved, but the rest of them were told the wrong day and so weren't ready before British military response to the first batch made sticking their heads out seem too unwise.
___________________________________________________
I wonder how many of those KKK attackers Grant manages to take with him?
Dagoth Ur
Banned
Yes, of course it's also a revenge fantasy? I don't understand how a right-thinking person can think differently. How does a group of extremists assassinating someone give anyone else carte blanche to violate rights and install military occupation over any other people, group, or geographical area?
Violate rights? Like the rights of the Freedmen were violated after Reconstruction?
Military occupation? Most of the troops in the South were in the coastal areas, there were many areas where they barely had any troops at all. Sorry, but this is sounds very close to Lost Cause arguments against Reconstruction.
Dagoth Ur
Banned
Two wrongs don't make a right don't'cha know.
In your own post you're stating many areas had barely any troops at all. Now you see why it's a revenge fantasy to think Grant being assassinated would result in some kind of magical successful reconstruction.
What wrong did the Union troops do? Guarantee the safety of the Freedmen?
A president being assassinated by an internal terrorist force would make the North angry. Hell, they were angry enough to pass three amendments giving rights to Black people even when the majority of them were extremely racist, the North isn't letting the South get away with murdering a President, especially a war hero. Many Radical Republicans would use this assassination to their political advantage, and many of those Radicals would think that passing amendments was not good enough, they would need to increase military presence in the South. After all, even with draft riots and weakening morale in 1863, the Union was able to mantain their current numbers. And don't get it wrong, all Republicans would frame this as a war on them, and having a powerful White man (instead of only black people and an extremely small number of poor whites) being murdered by the KKK would turn Northern moderates to the Republican side, even if they don't become Radicals.
Dagoth Ur
Banned
Military occupation is a wrong my guy.
Sure they passed three amendments, but it took just shy of 100 years to actually enforce it, with 1960's organization and communications. Northerners in 1873 aren't going to support a military occupation of states which are not even in rebellion, when hundreds of thousands of white men were killed not even ten years previously. You've got to fathom how war-weary and -wary people were, especially when it's a civil war where nothing is really gained. It's not surprising the north could maintain numbers in the middle of a war, already full steam ahead and with plenty of industry and inertia. An assassination out of the blue catches the US on the back foot and not ready for any kind of war or military occupation. With the south already back in the US, I don't see what the point would be to northerners.
fdas
Banned
So, military occupation is wrong, but not enforcing civil rights because you don't have an occupation is also wrong?
One can not happen without the other. As a Black person, I choose military occupation
Agreed. But from my perspective, military occupation resulting in better race relations is better than none.
Much the same as after Lincoln's assassination. They'll look for a big conspiracy but find it only consisted of half a dozen wingnuts. The assassins will be hanged as Lincoln's were. After that, not a lot changed, though the Democratic victory in the 1874 midterms may not be s big as OTL.