Aiming for a truly Radical Reconstruction: would this work?

[sciscisciortino]

It's been debated how to successfully sustain an egalitarian Reconstructed South and the general consensus, of course, is that it's difficult to imagine. Really difficult. There was not really the political-ideological incentive to root-and-branch redistribute the land holding of the southern planter class or to utterly liquidate Redeemers. So how do we get there?

Perhaps we can shift the spectrum quite radically through this: what if a mixture of the Baltimore Plot and the Booth plot succeeded, in the timing of the Baltimore Plot? This would mean President-elect Lincoln, Vice President-elect Hamlin and known presumptive incoming Secretary Of State Seward are assassinated. Aside from this possibly sparking a constitutional crisis in an already extremely volatile situation, and assuming the Civil War ends in Union victory, could this set the events and shape the ideological spectrum to ensure biracial democracy?

 

[Derek Jackson]

Use threats of treason prosecutions to confiscate land from the planter class.

Consitutional amendment strongly protecting former slaves and their dependent's political rights in former rebel states.

This would leave the former slaves stronger and harder to disenfranchise.

Easier to pass in the White North encouraging former slaves to stay in the South

 

[Mikestone8]

The OTL assassination (despite coming on top of Ft Pillow and Andersonville) had no such effect, and, assuming the war lasts about the same time as the OTL, this one will be ancient history by the time it ends. So why would this be any more likely to do so?

 

[Johnrankins]

The best I think you can do is to redistribute the planter's land to Union war vets regardless of race. Even that would be tough.

 

[Daztur]

What would help is if you could get a fairly large and unduring black majority in some states as in South Carolina in Male Rising.

 

[StephenColbert27]

Possibly. One of the things that sunk Radical Reconstruction was that Johnson and the Radicals were at each others throats, and Johnson dismantled the land confiscations (40 Acres and a Mule).

 

[Mikestone8]

Possibly. One of the things that sunk Radical Reconstruction was that Johnson and the Radicals were at each others throats, and Johnson dismantled the land confiscations (40 Acres and a Mule).

That couldn't have worked anyway, save maybe in a few counties which were overwhelmingly Black in population. Anywhere with a substantial number of Whites, a Freedman rash enough to take up confiscated land would soon have been found lying in the road with bullet holes in his back.

"Forty acres and a mule" was never government policy, and was never likely to be under any POTUS.

 

[Derek Jackson]

Remember in OTL the old Southern ruling class was allowed to take charge for about 2 years after the defeat.

Had they been dispossessed and exiled in the immediate aftermath things would likely been different.

I suspect that white folk who hated the idea of equality might well have left

 

[Mikestone8]

Remember in OTL the old Southern ruling class was allowed to take charge for about 2 years after the defeat.

Had they been dispossessed and exiled in the immediate aftermath things would likely been different.

I suspect that white folk who hated the idea of equality might well have left

When did anything like that have the remotest chance of getting through Congress?

When the 14th Amendment was being debated, an initial House draft proposed to disfranchise ex-Rebs until 1870 - yet that had to be dropped because the Senate thought it went too far. So talking about wholesale confiscation and/or exile is ay out in ASB territory.

And why should opponents of equality leave when they knew perfectly well that the average Northerner didn't believe in it any more than they did, and would soon lose interest in doing anything to enforce it? Why give in when in the long run they couldn't lose?

 

[sciscisciortino]

The OTL assassination (despite coming on top of Ft Pillow and Andersonville) had no such effect, and, assuming the war lasts about the same time as the OTL, this one will be ancient history by the time it ends. So why would this be any more likely to do so?

Well, my idea is that because it's at the beginning of the war and would only add greatly to ensuing panic and rage if a constitutional crisis from the utter decapitation of the incoming government is performed by treasonous rebels, it can paint and shape all the events that come after a lot more than Lincoln's assassination at the end of the war did. By the time of Lincoln's death the "fog of war" was already lifted. Here it's only throwing jet fuel into the confusion.

 

[Mikestone8]

But coming at the start means that by 1865 assuming the war still ends about then) it will be pretty ancient history. And the Republicans are still basically the same people as OTL - mostly conservative ex-Whigs - who are most unlikely to be won over to a programme like that. OTL it took two years of provocation from Andrew Johnson before they would even embrace Black suffrage.

The only thing that could make it even remotely possible would be if the South refused to accept defeat and tried to fight a guerrilla war. But of course they could see what that would lead to, and declined to do it for precisely that reason.

 

[StephenColbert27]

That couldn't have worked anyway, save maybe in a few counties which were overwhelmingly Black in population. Anywhere with a substantial number of Whites, a Freedman rash enough to take up confiscated land would soon have been found lying in the road with bullet holes in his back.

"Forty acres and a mule" was never government policy, and was never likely to be under any POTUS.

False, it was enacted. 400,000 acres was confiscated, and within a few months, 40,000 freedmen had taken advantage of it, and settled on it. However, it was reversed not long after Johnson came to power.
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/african-ame...history/the-truth-behind-40-acres-and-a-mule/

 

[Mikestone8]

False, it was enacted. 400,000 acres was confiscated, and within a few months, 40,000 freedmen had taken advantage of it, and settled on it. However, it was reversed not long after Johnson came to power.
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/african-ame...history/the-truth-behind-40-acres-and-a-mule/

40,000 out of four million Freedmen. Hardly a revolution. And note what your cite says.

"on the islands, and in the settlements hereafter to be established, no white person whatever, unless military officers and soldiers detailed for duty, will be permitted to reside"

IOW, they knew that this would only work in an area where there were no or hardly any whites - clearly inapplicable to the South as a whole. It was a quick way for Sherman to unburden himself of a mass of runaway slaves who ere following his army.

And if Johnson hadn't scuppered it, wouldn't the SCOTUS have done so? After all, the Constitution only allows forfeiture "during the lifetime of the person attainted" and none of those owners had even been tried, much less convicted.

 

[Derek Jackson]

Making War against the United States is TREASON. The deal would be giving up property and leaving instead of prosecution and facing the normal penalty for treason.

It could be sold as moderate, ordering that most rebels not be charged and offering this deal to the rest.

Massive fines are clearly legal, I mean when a person dies are their heirs repaid all parking and library fines

 

[Johnrankins]

Making War against the United States is TREASON. The deal would be giving up property and leaving instead of prosecution and facing the normal penalty for treason.

It could be sold as moderate, ordering that most rebels not be charged and offering this deal to the rest.

Massive fines are clearly legal, I mean when a person dies are their heirs repaid all parking and library fines

You would need to conduct thousands of trails at the very least, they have to be convicted of said treason in the first place. It would be highly expensive and impractical. Besides most Northerners wanted to put the war behind them which is unlikely if they start seizing land. That is likely to start the guerrilla war they wanted to avoid.

 

[Derek Jackson]

You would merely have to offer the choice. Leave and give up the stuff or dance danny deaver.

(Actually I suspect that the President would communt and find a sentence short of actual execuion for any who resisted)

 

[Johnrankins]

You would merely have to offer the choice. Leave and give up the stuff or dance danny deaver.

(Actually I suspect that the President would communt and find a sentence short of actual execuion for any who resisted)

You would still have to get convictions for crimes and you would still have to have a Northern Public willing to risk guerrilla war.

 

[StephenColbert27]

40,000 out of four million Freedmen. Hardly a revolution. And note what your cite says.

"on the islands, and in the settlements hereafter to be established, no white person whatever, unless military officers and soldiers detailed for duty, will be permitted to reside"

IOW, they knew that this would only work in an area where there were no or hardly any whites - clearly inapplicable to the South as a whole. It was a quick way for Sherman to unburden himself of a mass of runaway slaves who ere following his army.

And if Johnson hadn't scuppered it, wouldn't the SCOTUS have done so? After all, the Constitution only allows forfeiture "during the lifetime of the person attainted" and none of those owners had even been tried, much less convicted.

I view this as a small-scale experiment. You claimed that even if 40-Acres-and-a-Mule had been enacted (and clearly it was, even if it was on a small scale) no blacks would have taken up the land for fear of reprisal. In this case, it clearly was by a large number. If a more radical government had been in charge, I could see a more expansive version of this happening. The question is the one that you posed: what does the Supreme Court do? The argument that would have to be made is that the men who the land was taken from were dedicated Rebels, and that this was the commuted sentence/punishment for their treason. Obviously, there are problems with this, but it's the only chance I see for it to succeed.

 

[Mikestone8]

I view this as a small-scale experiment. You claimed that even if 40-Acres-and-a-Mule had been enacted (and clearly it was, even if it was on a small scale) no blacks would have taken up the land for fear of reprisal. In this case, it clearly was by a large number.

In an area without a significant white population. In my original message (#7) I specifically made an exception for that situation - but across most of the South, such was not the case.

If a more radical government had been in charge, I could see a more expansive version of this happening. The question is the one that you posed: what does the Supreme Court do? The argument that would have to be made is that the men who the land was taken from were dedicated Rebels, and that this was the commuted sentence/punishment for their treason. Obviously, there are problems with this, but it's the only chance I see for it to succeed.

There certainly are problems, given that OTL even Jefferson Davis himself was never brought to trial. So one can well imagine how keen American politicians (and the public, 45% of whom had voted Democratic in 1864) would be to hold hundreds - maybe thousands - of individual treason trials of minor figures, merely as a device to get their land. If offered pardons conditional on surrendering their property, most Southerners simply wouldn't have applied for them, but chosen to bide their time in the hope of an unconditional pardon later. And even if this were not forthcoming (imho very unlikely) there's still the constitutional ban on "forfeiture save during the life of the person attainted", which would give the planters' heirs a strong legal case.

Incidentally, it would in principle be possible to give the Freedmen land without confiscation. In the postwar years, many plantations were seized for tax default and similar causes. In theory this land could have been distributed, but in practice even the Radical State governments set up under Reconstruction preferred to put it up for auction. In the South's ruinous condition they needed the money, as of course would a Federal government with a war to pay for. Sorry to be pouring cold water all the time, but I just don't see it happening.

 

[Drunkrobot]

I've wondered about the plausibility of offering to settle freed familes out west in the territories. It goes against both the promise to freedmen that they may own the land they once worked and the ideals of the true egalitarians that want to see a properly integrated society, but, in theory, it should be possible to start dividing up empty land in the territories and handing them out to communities of freedmen who volunteer to settle the frontier. Yes, this is extremely problematic, but it should be easy to pass it through whites who would want nothing more than to see these freedmen go away, and I doubt the former slaves would be any more keen on living near the people who kept them in chains, if they could go out and build a local government from scratch to serve them.

This, of course, ignores the Native Americans who are living in those territories, but I did say it was problematic.

 

[Mikestone8]

I've wondered about the plausibility of offering to settle freed familes out west in the territories. It goes against both the promise to freedmen that they may own the land they once worked.

Who exactly promised them that? Certainly not Lincoln.

 

[Daztur]

I've wondered about the plausibility of offering to settle freed familes out west in the territories. It goes against both the promise to freedmen that they may own the land they once worked and the ideals of the true egalitarians that want to see a properly integrated society, but, in theory, it should be possible to start dividing up empty land in the territories and handing them out to communities of freedmen who volunteer to settle the frontier. Yes, this is extremely problematic, but it should be easy to pass it through whites who would want nothing more than to see these freedmen go away, and I doubt the former slaves would be any more keen on living near the people who kept them in chains, if they could go out and build a local government from scratch to serve them.

This, of course, ignores the Native Americans who are living in those territories, but I did say it was problematic.

Might work if combined with confiscation of planter land to hand out to white people so they wouldn't feel like they're being cut off by land grants to blacks.