WI More Active and Effective Reconstruction

[Fordicus]

This thread ties in with my original thread, Lincoln Survives Assassination, that envisions the establishment of a Free State in Florida as a majority protected homeland for freedmen as a compromise between Lincoln's peristent schemes of colonization and political and physical realities.

I have been through a few books on Reconstruction, now reading Foner's very excellent work and have to say I am nothing less than saddened and outraged at the opportunity that was squandered. Perhaps my largest question is why the freedmen did not organize in enclaves for self defense. The small amount of defensive violence is difficult to comprehend. There are some answers that include the actual connivance of the Union army to keep freedmen on plantations, the lack of forces and resources available to the Union army, a fairly toothless Freedmen's bureau. There were some instances of resistance such as the siege and massacre of Colfax, LA but overall, it appears the freedmen took the stripping and limitation of their new found freedoms almost lying down. Or at least without too many notable incidents of active armed rebellion.

Perhaps my question is broad but what would it have taken to truly make reconstruction work? I have put forward my idea for the establishment of a Free State in Florida, a freedmen's homeland where many could take advantage of the Southern Homestead Act and live outside the harassment of the former rebels. For those who wished to exercise their right to remain in the places of their birth, the effect would be that there would be a place of safety to go to and the decrease in the workforce available outside of the other former confederate states would place a premium on labor.

How would L have handled reconstruction differently than Johnson? And how would his initial handling of reconstruction have effected his successors?

 

[Derek Jackson]

I hope that LIncoln would have reacted as most republicans did when the Southern rebels responded so badly to the mercy both in their treatment of former slaves and of white unionists

Truth to tell the best chance of proper reconstruction was a more radical president destroying and exiling the planter class and creating an owner class of freedmen

 

[GeographyDude]

You can still take the high road of, with malice toward none and charity toward all.

You need military leaders like MacArthur in Japan, who aren't going to brutalize the defeated population, but aren't going to take any gruff either. Who just have an even, matter-of-fact attitude, this is just the way things are going to be.

And you need a president who puts in place and backs up about a dozen such officers. Almost like a modern corporation, both measuring metrics and spot checking. Or having people you've worked with and trust doing the spot checking.

 

[Alstein]

You would have needed some brutalization to keep the South in line.
Maybe even forced relocation.

 

[Derek Jackson]

Well you would just need to expropriate the landed plANTER class
give them the option of accepting exile or being prosecuted for treason

 

[Fordicus]

You would have needed some brutalization to keep the South in line.
Maybe even forced relocation.

Forced relocation of who?

 

[Alstein]

Southern whites. Force them to move west by confiscating land to give to freedmen, and offering them Western land in compensation.

ASB that it would be considered- but it would be a suitable punishment for areas that rebel.

 

[Simreeve]

Basically, as long as the federal government wanted to claim that secession had been illegal and the civil war had only been the recovery of rebellious areas rather than the conquest of another nation, the fact that the USA's existing constitution didn't contain any clauses designed to cover such a situation meant that there were legal limits on how far the federal government could treat the southern states differently from the northern ones.

 

[Ultimate Paragon]

Southern whites. Force them to move west by confiscating land to give to freedmen, and offering them Western land in compensation.

ASB that it would be considered- but it would be a suitable punishment for areas that rebel.

I doubt Lincoln would do that.

 

[Mikestone8]

How exactly were these draconian measures to be enforced?

The Union Army dwindled back to peacetime levels within a few years of Appomattox. That means a bit under 30,000, with maybe 3000 available for duty in the South.

How do you push through a social revolution with forces as limited as that?

 

[Locke01]

How exactly were these draconian measures to be enforced?

The Union Army dwindled back to peacetime levels within a few years of Appomattox. That means a bit under 30,000, with maybe 3000 available for duty in the South.

How do you push through a social revolution with forces as limited as that?

Without a much larger occupation army in the South, no social revolution is going to occur, and there will be no enforcement of draconian measures. Put 50,000 Union Army soldiers in the South, keep them there for a generation and perhaps this social revolution will occur. Nut that occupation would be an ASB event, not something that could conceivably have happened in OTL.

 

[Fordicus]

I hope that LIncoln would have reacted as most republicans did when the Southern rebels responded so badly to the mercy both in their treatment of former slaves and of white unionists

Truth to tell the best chance of proper reconstruction was a more radical president destroying and exiling the planter class and creating an owner class of freedmen

Lincoln seems to have been focused on reconciliation. His ten percent plan was very generous. Ten percent of loyal citizens could establish a state government.

The south was actually cut up into ten military districts. Only about 12K troops remained and those were usually in urban areas, far from the countryside where most of the terror took place. Many people, Frederick Douglas included, argued that some in the government were so set on reconciliation that they were willing to sell out the freedmen, many of whom had helped win the Union victory, as well as Southern unionists. Union commanders actually sometimes helped keep freedmen on plantations. The Freedman's Bureau at times seemed intent on a return to plantation labor.

Various schemes of land redistribution were discussed and tremendous expanses were forfeited for failure to pay taxes. There was potential for land redistribution that might have created a viable yeomanry in many places. Little of it ever came to fruition.

On the whole, it appears to me at this point that the victorious North lost the peace by being too eager for reconciliation at the costs of the fruits of victory. It is also unfortunately true that prejudice reigned supreme both north and south. None of the northern states opened their arms to receive the freedmen. In 1865, several even voted not to extend suffrage.

So it appears military force was what was needed. Too bad the political will was not there.

 

[Kooluk Swordsman]

This thread ties in with my original thread, Lincoln Survives Assassination, that envisions the establishment of a Free State in Florida as a majority protected homeland for freedmen as a compromise between Lincoln's peristent schemes of colonization and political and physical realities.

I have been through a few books on Reconstruction, now reading Foner's very excellent work and have to say I am nothing less than saddened and outraged at the opportunity that was squandered. Perhaps my largest question is why the freedmen did not organize in enclaves for self defense. [1] The small amount of defensive violence is difficult to comprehend. There are some answers that include the actual connivance of the Union army to keep freedmen on plantations, the lack of forces and resources available to the Union army, a fairly toothless Freedmen's bureau. There were some instances of resistance such as the siege and massacre of Colfax, LA but overall, it appears the freedmen took the stripping and limitation of their new found freedoms almost lying down. [2] Or at least without too many notable incidents of active armed rebellion.

Perhaps my question is broad but what would it have taken to truly make reconstruction work? [3] I have put forward my idea for the establishment of a Free State in Florida, a freedmen's homeland where many could take advantage of the Southern Homestead Act and live outside the harassment of the former rebels. For those who wished to exercise their right to remain in the places of their birth, the effect would be that there would be a place of safety to go to and the decrease in the workforce available outside of the other former confederate states would place a premium on labor.

How would L have handled reconstruction differently than Johnson? And how would his initial handling of reconstruction have effected his successors?

*cracks knuckles*

1. With what guns? The Union made it a priority to disarm most of its black serviceman asap. Freedman certainly didn't have any weapons, and the South made it difficult, if not impossible, for blacks to arm themselves.

2. Free blacks tried their utmost, with the tools available to them, to resist white terrorism. They tried appealing to the farmers and working-class (also my main argument for why CSA Communism wouldn't work ). They tried using the machinery of Congress. In many cases blacks did defend themselves, although often the police would disarm them.

Simply put, blacks were just outgunned and outnumbered in every front they tried to fight in.

3. My opinion: Reconstruction was as good as it was going to get. It's hard to overstate how much the North did not care about blacks. The Radical Republicans weren't going to exist forever, and the nation as a whole, despite disagreements on slavery, were pretty united in the idea that blacks were inferior.

A longer military occupation was just going to make Southerners angrier. Eventually the North would have to withdraw and things would boil over.

Contrary to common knowledge, blacks did acquire large amounts of land after the civil war, particularly in the Mississippi Delta, which was heavily developed by freed slaves. However, the collapse of cotton prices and more importantly, white hostility, led to most black landowners being forced off their land.

The tragic truth is that Reconstruction, as a top-down process, was doomed to failure, because the South was always going to be hostile to it. Racism was too entrenched. Although I'd love to be proven wrong, there's nothing that could have been done.

 

[Mikestone8]

So it appears military force was what was needed. Too bad the political will was not there.

But then why should it have been there?

For most people in the North, racial equality was never an end in itself. For Democrats, of course (roughly 45% of Northerners) it was never an end at all. As for Republicans, their main concern was to stop the Southern states being governed by elements disloyal to the Union, who might raise another rebellion. However, it soon became evident that this wasn't a serious problem - that most ex-Rebs were willing to accept the failure of secession, as long as they were left alone to run their states as they wished, esp where race relations was concerned. Once this was recognised, Black rights became at best an irrelevance, at worst an obstacle to sectional reconciliation, so it didn't take too long for them to be abandoned.

 

[Derek Jackson]

The trick would have been to have written in stronger guarantees in the South. An amendment along those lines would have been backed by some on principle and others because it would mean that former slaves would stay in the South.

At the start of the Reconstruction the Federal government should have claimed there was a huge distinction between 'decent southerners' and the planter class.

They were a powerful but numerically not huge class. They had made war on the United States. They could legally and morally been given the option of accepting conditions for pardon (leaving the US with nothing and staying away for say 20 years) or prosecution with a 'loyal' (mostly composed of black former soldiers) jury.

I do not believe that white southerners are inherantly racist. And if they had a generation or two of dealing with the reality of having black land owners employers and office holders things would be different

 

[Kooluk Swordsman]

The trick would have been to have written in stronger guarantees in the South. An amendment along those lines would have been backed by some on principle and others because it would mean that former slaves would stay in the South.

At the start of the Reconstruction the Federal government should have claimed there was a huge distinction between 'decent southerners' and the planter class.

They were a powerful but numerically not huge class. They had made war on the United States. They could legally and morally been given the option of accepting conditions for pardon (leaving the US with nothing and staying away for say 20 years) or prosecution with a 'loyal' (mostly composed of black former soldiers) jury.

I do not believe that white southerners are inherantly racist. And if they had a generation or two of dealing with the reality of having black land owners employers and office holders things would be different

You're looking at it like it was just the planter class that was against seeing black people in positions of economic/political power. The white poor were also vehemently against it as well; in this both classes were united.

It's not a Southern thing, it's an American thing; racism was just as entrenched in the North, as blacks would discover when the migrations started.

Persecuting the planter class would do nothing about the rather large white poor and working class who hated blacks just as much.

There was just no way to make Reconstruction better, alas, unless you make a POD waaaaaaay back that somehow altered the perception whites had of blacks. Racism and all the baggage that comes with it is more than just a class issue, or a issue of getting used to seeing black landowners. It's systemic and all-pervasive, and it can't just be erased or suppressed with the top-down method Reconstruction attempted.

Without destroying racism, Reconstruction was doomed as soon as the troops withdrew. And no amount of Reconstructionism, Radical Republicanism, or some other similar plan, was going to destroy an ideology 100+ years in the making.

 

[GeographyDude]

One way to go after planters might be to pursue Confederate officials and officers in Southern armies for monetary damages for the war. I suspect considerable overlap between this group and planters. And other southerns might find it forgivable and almost humorous that the northerners went after deep pockets.

In most cases, they couldn't pay and you could sell off 80% of their land or maybe the whole thing. The stated goal is to sell to homesteaders representative of that area

And maybe a artful sidestep. Privately speak with black leaders. Say you don't want them perceived as teacher's pets or favorites and see how that conversation goes. Perhaps newly freed persons will like the idea of first getting other land, and perhaps having their numbers slightly underrepresative in the land distributed from planters, to avoid yet another ground for criticism and blame.

 

[Fordicus]

*cracks knuckles*

1. With what guns? The Union made it a priority to disarm most of its black serviceman asap. Freedman certainly didn't have any weapons, and the South made it difficult, if not impossible, for blacks to arm themselves.

2. Free blacks tried their utmost, with the tools available to them, to resist white terrorism. They tried appealing to the farmers and working-class (also my main argument for why CSA Communism wouldn't work ). They tried using the machinery of Congress. In many cases blacks did defend themselves, although often the police would disarm them.

Simply put, blacks were just outgunned and outnumbered in every front they tried to fight in.

3. My opinion: Reconstruction was as good as it was going to get. It's hard to overstate how much the North did not care about blacks. The Radical Republicans weren't going to exist forever, and the nation as a whole, despite disagreements on slavery, were pretty united in the idea that blacks were inferior.

A longer military occupation was just going to make Southerners angrier. Eventually the North would have to withdraw and things would boil over.

Contrary to common knowledge, blacks did acquire large amounts of land after the civil war, particularly in the Mississippi Delta, which was heavily developed by freed slaves. However, the collapse of cotton prices and more importantly, white hostility, led to most black landowners being forced off their land.

The tragic truth is that Reconstruction, as a top-down process, was doomed to failure, because the South was always going to be hostile to it. Racism was too entrenched. Although I'd love to be proven wrong, there's nothing that could have been done.

Very well put together response. My reading list is huge, over 20 books at this point, so I am not going to go fishing for citations at this point. I have always studied by getting a general idea of things and then going back to pick out the details.

Right on on parts one and two. The freedmen did not have modern weapons, maybe just shotguns sometimes. Certainly nothing that could stand up to the arms of the confederate veterans.

Perhaps I looked over Mississippi. I am aware of the leasing of Davis Bend to freedmen under the oversight of one industrious freedman. But on the whole what it appears happened is that black ownership of land was simply not tolerated. Violence was used to keep the old way of things in order. This included running off sharecroppers just as the harvest came. It was completely about economics, trying to maintain the plantation economy. What is truly sad is that some parts of the Freedmen's Bureau and the army encouraged the freedmen to sign year long labor contracts and then helped return them to their places of employment if they left early.

The state of things was truly appalling. Based on all of these factors and Lincoln's statements about colonization and reconstruction, I think that the establishment of a free state in Florida would not only have been the best course but the most likely. It was splitting the difference between L's colonization schemes and reality. Only about 70K whites would have been displaced from Florida if all of them had chosen to leave rather than live side by side with the freedmen. There would have been a guaranteed place of safety and an eternal Republican stronghold in the South. Labor would have been extremely scarce so the freedmen could have commanded high wages and demanded decent treatment. If not, capitalism and self-interest says go elsewhere.

 

[Fordicus]

But then why should it have been there?

For most people in the North, racial equality was never an end in itself. For Democrats, of course (roughly 45% of Northerners) it was never an end at all. As for Republicans, their main concern was to stop the Southern states being governed by elements disloyal to the Union, who might raise another rebellion. However, it soon became evident that this wasn't a serious problem - that most ex-Rebs were willing to accept the failure of secession, as long as they were left alone to run their states as they wished, esp where race relations was concerned. Once this was recognised, Black rights became at best an irrelevance, at worst an obstacle to sectional reconciliation, so it didn't take too long for them to be abandoned.

There was talk of having estates over $20K forfeited but it never came to fruition. There were a lot of seizures due to non-payment of taxes with a huge amount of land, millions of acres, under the control of the Freedmen's Bureau. It unfortunately just never made it into the hands of the freedmen.

 

[Fordicus]

And maybe a artful sidestep. Privately speak with black leaders. Say you don't want them perceived as teacher's pets or favorites and see how that conversation goes. Perhaps newly freed persons will like the idea of first getting other land, and perhaps having their numbers slightly underrepresative in the land distributed from planters, to avoid yet another ground for criticism and blame.[/QUOTE]

Lincoln and Douglas were developing a relationship just before L's death. L had a group of black leaders at the WH in 1862 but only to tell them that the ACW was pretty much their fault in his opinion and to ask for help in implementing his colonization scheme.

This quote is funny to me bc it reflects an odd concern that I occasionally hear voiced. Now we don't want special treatment for blacks. No sir.

It all started during Reconstruction. Some in Congress eschewed "class legislation." We don't want to make these people dependent now.

Does this not seem ironic considering that blacks were enslaved for more than 250 years, subjected to systematic robbery, torture and rape, in order to support whites yet whites could possibly call this laboring class lazy? After a life of subjugated labor a man is made free and told now stand on your own too feet? We could not give you any of the land you labored on and made fruitful. That would violate our principles. Law was enshrined in the constitution to keep them down but it would be a great affront to have legislation to lift them up?

When I hear these arguments, I can usually tag the person as a racist. It's code. You have to be subtle but these arguments are surrogates for outright statements of prejudice. Wink wink nod nod. It is still a conversation in which someone is contrasting themselves with others based on race. "Them."