WI More Active and Effective Reconstruction

[GeographyDude]

About the land and money in the Freedmen's Bureau not actually making it to the newly freed people, that's a real shame and a failure in administration. Not only did Sherman need to be MacArthur, he also needed to have a good financial administrator.

 

[NameUser]

If the plantations are broken up, I think a lot of that land will end up in white man's hands one way or another. The best way for that to happen would be for the Republican scalawags and carpetbaggers to extol the virtues of the brave, noble Southern men who were tragically misled by the decadent, un-american planter elite. Maybe you can throw in some early Lost Cause mythology and the ghost of Francis Bacon. Would this keep the South competitive for the GOP or does the Solid South still come about? I wonder what effects a less Solid South has on Jim Crow.

What does this do for freedmen?
Not a lot probably. This scheme might make more than OTL landowners. Most would end up tenant farmers and sharecroppers most likely. A more successful Reconstruction could lead to laws protecting those tenants and sharecroppers. I imagine the same paternalism that was used to justify slavery ,with the update that holding blacks in bondage was counterproductive, could be used justify those laws and encourage the new Southern yeomen to accept black tenants and maybe discourage lynching.
I don't know how workable or sustainable this half-baked scheme would be but I'm not all that optimistic. Hopefully, this would preempt a lot of the violence, rise of the KKK for example, by giving Southern white some good( choice real estate) with the "bad" freedmen voting and well... being free.

 

[NameUser]

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.

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."[/QUOTE]

I agree. Its always bothered me to see people, who can't afford boots, called lazy and degenerate for not pulling themselves "up by their bootstraps" while ignoring sometimes people have a lot of gravity holding them down.

 

[Mikestone8]

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.

Why should it have?

The Freedmen had no money, and the whole point of forfeiting land for non-payment of tax is so that it can be sold to recover the outstanding sums. So only those with money need apply.

Incidentally, even had the Freedmen obtained any of it, is there any reason to suppose the KKK etc would have respected their right to the land any more than it did their right to the vote?

 

[Fordicus]

Why should it have?

The Freedmen had no money, and the whole point of forfeiting land for non-payment of tax is so that it can be sold to recover the outstanding sums. So only those with money need apply.

Incidentally, even had the Freedmen obtained any of it, is there any reason to suppose the KKK etc would have respected their right to the land any more than it did their right to the vote?

It seems we have something of a consensus on the need for force, the continued deployment of soldiers, in order to ensure the rights of the freedmen, both civil and economic, and to avoid Jim Crow.

Agreed?

In light of that, without reiterating my previous thread, would the establishment of a free state not have been a practical method of accomplishing these goals?

 

[Fordicus]

Here's an interesting butterfly from my Florida Free State idea. The senatevote on the annexation of Santo Domingo was a tie in the senate. One or two votes would have put it over the top.

 

[BELFAST]

I think the biggest problem was lack of interest by the federal government. They had achieved their goal of preserving the union. Rights of former slaves was not that important to them.
Next item on the to do list for the Federal Government is stealing more land from Indians.

 

[Doctor Evulz]

Here's an interesting butterfly from my Florida Free State idea. The senatevote on the annexation of Santo Domingo was a tie in the senate. One or two votes would have put it over the top.

As a treaty, it needed 2/3rds of the vote. It wasn't close at all.

 

[Fordicus]

As a treaty, it needed 2/3rds of the vote. It wasn't close at all.

Ah ok. True this. I was looking at it as a general law to recognize additional territory rather than as a treaty with a foreign country.

 

[Fordicus]

But then that was not a problem for Texas or Hawaii

Both were annexed by simple majorities. Just a joint resolution. Objections were made but we see the outcome. The first precedent was standing at the time of the Santo Domingo annexation debate.

The only way I can honestly see it working out though is if Charles Sumner meets an untimely demise.