One can not happen without the other. As a Black person, I choose military occupation
Which is impossible without a much bigger army - and who's going to advocate that expense while they are still paying for the ACW?
One can not happen without the other. As a Black person, I choose military occupation
It's not a given Wilson will die.If Grant is assassinated Wilson is sworn as President but he is going to die in November 1875. If so, as Presidential Act of Succession of 1792 the President Pro Tempore of the Senate Thomas W. Ferry (R-Michigan) becomes the Acting President until a snap election is called not later then two months after the double vacancy occurred (in this case in late January at least). The new President would be sworn in office on 4th March for a four-years term. I think James Blaine could get it.
He had suffered an heart attack in May 1873 that left him half paralysed and unable to speak in public. For the rest of his term he was unable to perform even the mostly ceremonial duties of a 19th Century Vice President, until he suffered other two strokes and died. He is going to die and maybe even earlier then IOTL.It's not a given Wilson will die.
Motivated by hatred of Grant, members of the KKK plot to kill the president who they see as representing Northern oppression. The plot involves hundreds of KKK members who secretly gather in Washington DC and prepare stashes of weapons. In August of 1873 they launch an armed uprising and attack the White House before anyone is able to oppose them. After capturing the White House, president Grant and most of his cabinet are killed. The vice president is able to survive since he was not there. Eventually, the army is able to defeat the KKK members and restore order.
How does the country react in the aftermath of this event? With Grant dying before all of the scandals come to light, does he end up far more venerated in the future? And how will this galvanize support for Reconstruction, affecting the public's attitude toward the South?
Agreed. But from my perspective, military occupation resulting in better race relations is better than none.
Grant is more venerated than OTL, much like Lincoln, and he probably gets a mounted statue commemorating his victories and his presidency.
If Grant is assassinated Wilson is sworn as President but he is going to die in November 1875. If so, as Presidential Act of Succession of 1792 the President Pro Tempore of the Senate Thomas W. Ferry (R-Michigan) becomes the Acting President until a snap election is called not later then two months after the double vacancy occurred (in this case in late January at least). The new President would be sworn in office on 4th March for a four-years term. I think James Blaine could get it.
the thing is though, in OP's scenario, not only is it a conspiracy, it's a spectacle. Hundreds of klansmen storming DC and taking the white house before the army puts it down. is is it realistic? no, but it does change the calculus. now granted, if it is a few wingnuts when grant is out somewhere like @EnglishCanuck points out is more plausible, then you might be right. but that's not really what OP asked. they crafted the closest thing they could to a 19th century version of the Reagan attemptMuch 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.
Short term there will be a outcry and crackdown on the KKK.
Grant denounces the KKK and signals his support for the 15th Amendment and allowing Black people the right to vote. He doesn't do anything but generates an outrage in the South (Where most black people were)Who would count as "KKK"?
Keep in mind that the Klan had been officially "disbanded" as far back as 1869, though of course white supremacists continued the fight under various other names.
Nor, of course, can the government go after white supremacists as such, given that most people, even in the North, are white supremacist in varying degree.
Seems to me that this TL requires Southern whites to behave inn an utterly different way from OTL. Afaik, they *never* took on the Federal government directly, just shooting down "uppity" Blacks whenever the government's back was turned. Any thoughts on what would cause that to change?
But the only alternatives are military occupation or no military occupation. Also even if the North had not occupied the South, Southern Whites would find another excuse to be racist. This analysis that Reconstruction was responsible for worsening race relations ignores that White Southerners were inextricably linked with racism. This was true in the 1870s and even if racism has subsided, it is still pretty noticeable by how many Southerners defend the Confederacy. Bob Jones University prohibited blacks and whites from dating until 2000.You can't really ensure better race relations with a military occupation. Bayonets and rifles don't magically change centuries of racial prejudice, and this might only work in states like Mississippi and South Carolina where African American majorities existed and so would force white minorities out, and potentially set up have states for African Americans. In places where black people are the minority, then the second those soldiers leave life gets infinitely worse because those soldiers have been there guarding them and protecting their rights, which was fodder for Redeemer politicians and Lost Cause losers. It would take an economic and media campaign that was beyond the scope of most 19th century thinkers to do what you're proposing.
I'm not saying that the North wasn't racist. But it gets annoying when people keep saying the North was just as racist as the South in the 19th century. The fact that Freed Blacks (Even if a small population) were allowed to live in many states PLUS the fact that many schools in the North were integrated before the South (Even after the Great Migration) shows how this isn't trueBut the only alternatives are military occupation or no military occupation. Also even if the North had not occupied the South, Southern Whites would find another excuse to be racist. This analysis that Reconstruction was responsible for worsening race relations ignores that White Southerners were inextricably linked with racism. This was true in the 1870s and even if racism has subsided, it is still pretty noticeable by how many Southerners defend the Confederacy. Bob Jones University prohibited blacks and whites from dating until 2000.
Grant denounces the KKK and signals his support for the 15th Amendment and allowing Black people the right to vote. He doesn't do anything but generates an outrage in the South (Where most black people were)
But the only alternatives are military occupation or no military occupation.
And this is why I hate America.And since the first is impossible once the Army has shrunk back to peacetime levels, in practice that leaves only the second.
Nope.And this is why I hate America.
But the only alternatives are military occupation or no military occupation. Also even if the North had not occupied the South, Southern Whites would find another excuse to be racist. This analysis that Reconstruction was responsible for worsening race relations ignores that White Southerners were inextricably linked with racism. This was true in the 1870s and even if racism has subsided, it is still pretty noticeable by how many Southerners defend the Confederacy. Bob Jones University prohibited blacks and whites from dating until 2000.
And this is why I hate America.
Can you name *any* place (except where there was a total physical separation eg Haiti or the Exodus) where any people went straight from chattel slavery to equality with their former masters? afaik it just doesn't seem to happen.
Nathan Bedford Forest might not ride off into the sunset quite so cleanly