WI: Union Punishes Most Confederate Leadership After the US Civil War?

[zoomar]

Other than trials for confirmed war criminals, I think it would have been both a short-term and long term mistake to arrest and execute Confederate civilian and military leadership as traitors (although they obviously were) or engage in draconian and unconstitutional land redistribution practices aimed at eliminating the planter aristocracy. The OTL leniency has set a precedent for the US to be relatively lenient in dealing with other defeated enemies, convicted political subversives, deserters, draft-dodgers, individual traitors, and others in the following century. Had the US government executed several hundred or a thousand Confederate leaders after the Civil War as traitors and forcefully expropriate legally owned land from thousands of private citizens for redistribution to freed slaves and others, all sorts of awful precedents would be set. In fact, I question whether the traditions of American democracy would survive.

 

[Athelstane]

Other than trials for confirmed war criminals, I think it would have been both a short-term and long term mistake to arrest and execute Confederate civilian and military leadership as traitors (although they obviously were) or engage in draconian and unconstitutional land redistribution practices aimed at eliminating the planter aristocracy. The OTL leniency has set a precedent for the US to be relatively lenient in dealing with other defeated enemies, convicted political subversives, deserters, draft-dodgers, individual traitors, and others in the following century. Had the US government executed several hundred or a thousand Confederate leaders after the Civil War as traitors and forcefully expropriate legally owned land from thousands of private citizens for redistribution to freed slaves and others, all sorts of awful precedents would be set. In fact, I question whether the traditions of American democracy would survive.

I would agree with that. That seems to have been the way the American character has tended to operate. Quick to anger, but quick to forgive, too.

I think Lincoln's own position, as we know it, is telling in this regard. Here's an excerpt by Mel Maurer, recounting a now rather famous exchange at the Hampton Roads Conference in March, 1865:

Seward then informed the commissioners that Congress had just passed a constitutional amendment banning slavery throughout the country – the whole country - while they were making their way to the meeting. Lincoln added that he still favored some sort of compensation for the loss of slaves if Congress approved. Shelby Foote says this news of the amendment came as “a considerable shock to the delegates but that was mild compared to what followed when Hunter attempted to summarize Lincoln’s terms with a question” – “Mr. President, if we understand you correctly, you think that we of the Confederacy have committed treason; that we have forfeited our rights and are proper subjects for the hangman. Is that what your words imply? Lincoln answered: “Yes, you have stated the proposition better than I did. That’s about the size of it.” After further discussion and a few Lincoln “tension easing stories” Hunter was able to conclude that “We shall not be hanged as long as you are president: if we behave ourselves.”

So here we have Abe Lincoln, who is quite clear in stating that he thinks that the Confederate leaders are traitors, and that he would be within his rights to try and execute them as such. This is a pretty hard line.

And yet...Lincoln is also quite obviously engineering a "let 'em up easy" policy toward the South. No compromise on surrender or reunion, or, indeed, even on slavery (despite Seward's machinations); but he is so willing to go easy on the Confederates in the interests of reunion that he is at least open to some kind of compensation plan for freeing the slaves, as a way of reconciling the South. Now, I think that this was unlikely to happen if Lincoln had lived, but it's not inconceivable that he might have put something along these lines through.

And if Lincoln had such a position, I think it's pretty unlikely that you see the political support for a much more ambitious (and much more expensive) re-making of the South. I think you also have to concede that Lincoln's policy was not without its wisdom, even if we also deplore some of the long-term costs of it.

 

[TFSmith121]

Oh, I agree, the Civil War ended about as well as

I disagree, with respect, TF.

Oh, I agree, the Civil War ended about as well as can be imagined for the US as a whole, especially in comparison to other Western nations that have suffered similar events...

But for those who, realistically, were among the most sinned against, "reunion" overcame justice by a long shot.

As far as extrajudicial killings, figures that come easily to hand are at least 4,000+ lynchings, recognized as such, in the former rebel states between 1882-1968 (Tuskegee), and thousands more, at least, in recognized incidents of race-based "political" conflict in the 1860s and 1870s, at least (Colfax being the archetype, but Memphis being another); then there are incidents like Wilmington in the 1890s and Rosewood in the Twentieth... include the murders that simply didn't rise to the level of "lynch law" violence over the century after 1865, but which were committed because of the racial realities of the southern US, and I don't doubt total numbers were in the tens of thousands.

Include the crimes that didn't rise to the level of murder (Hannah Rosen's Terror in the Heart of Freedom and Lisa Dorr's Rape and the Power of Race are both not hard to find) and it is pretty clear what the lack of a rule of law in the American south in the ten decades after Appomattox cost the United States.

On this day, in particular, it seems Lincoln was on point in the 2nd Inagural.

"...if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."

Oh captain my captain...

Best,

 

[jahenders]

Apparently it didn't forfeit, but he did leave the country and live in Canada until all charges were dropped.

1. Looks like $1.6 million, roughly. Depends on what measure you use.

2. The terms of Davis's bail were that he had to be present if and when he was put on trial, with the date set for Nov. 25. It did not restrict him from leaving the jurisdiction or the country. Davis actually did return to Richmond in November 1867 to prepare for his trial. The "Court convened on the 26th, but Chase was not present, and the government asked for a postponement. Davis was released on his own recognizance, and the defense asked that some sort of consideration be given him so he would not be "subjected to a renewal of the inconvenience" of making the trip to Richmond if a trial was not going to be held. As it turned out, Davis would not have to appear in court again during any of the subsequent proceedings." (Source) Thus, as far as I know, the bail was not forfeit. Apparently, he visited Ontario because that is where his family was living at the time.

3. Whatever else was true of Davis, it would have been out of character for him to leave that bail forfeit; he had a strong, if curious, sense of personal honor, one that was almost debilitating for him in political life. You can see that, and his intent to return, in his personal letters. Of course, you can also read of his expressed fears that he would be put before a "mongrel" (i.e., black) jury.

 

[Athelstane]

Apparently it didn't forfeit, but he did leave the country and live in Canada until all charges were dropped.

Well, actually, no, he did return to Richmond in November, 1867, when the trial was scheduled to begin. The his attorneys successfully brought a motion waving the need for his presence for most of the judicial proceedings. Then he bounced around between Baltimore, New Orleans, England, France, and Quebec over the next year and half, partly in hopes of finding employment, since he had lost all of his money in the war. (He ultimately found work only in late 1869, with a life insurance company in Memphis, ironically.)

Johnson issued a parson shortly before leaving office, and then the charges were withdrawn by the prosecution in February, 1869.

There are a number of things we can task Davis with - not least his stubborn refusal to surrender before and after the fall of Richmond - but he seems to have played by the rules regarding his prosecution, and seems willing to have faced any sentence he might have received - perhaps because he was quite ready to play the martyr. It was a role he was perfectly formed to play, even if he was not a terribly good president.

 

[Mikestone8]

There are a number of things we can task Davis with - not least his stubborn refusal to surrender before and after the fall of Richmond - but he seems to have played by the rules regarding his prosecution, and seems willing to have faced any sentence he might have received - perhaps because he was quite ready to play the martyr. It was a role he was perfectly formed to play, even if he was not a terribly good president.

In some ways he sounds a lot like John Brown - though of course at the opposite extreme.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

In some ways he sounds a lot like John Brown - though of course at the opposite extreme.

Well I wouldn't go that far in comparison. As I understand it he was a cantankerous, dislikable, argumentative, controlling, and radically opinionated man who was placed in a position of power which more than likely exceeded his abilities. Saying he had a peculiar sense of honor isn't too far from the norm in those days.

 

[Lateknight]

In some ways he sounds a lot like John Brown - though of course at the opposite extreme.

John Brown was willing to die for his beliefs Davis was not. There's more differences in there views but fundamentally that's to me the main difference.

 

[Mikestone8]

John Brown was willing to die for his beliefs Davis was not. There's more differences in there views but fundamentally that's to me the main difference.

How do you mean?

As others have observed, he came back for trial - though in the event it was never held, and by then was looking increasingly unlikely.

What are you saying he should have done - led a platoon of die-hards on a suicide ride into the midst of Grant's army?.

It is also my understanding that in 1861 he would have preferred an army command to being President. That would certainly have been putting his life on the line.

 

[historynutty]

I don't think there'd be much bushwacking on the West Coast, SW, NW, Midwest, NE, and Great Lakes regions. An "utterly failed state" conjures up the image of Somalia. As to the Deep South, if the South in general does this, the paradigm changes, and brings the full wrath of the North. If the South does not even give the semblance of co-operation, then its the most extreme outcome for Reconstruction after all.

After another decade of endless war and conscription more States than not might have wanted out of the failed Union. Already by 1864 several Great Lake States were being kept in the War only by federal occupation.

 

[Lateknight]

How do you mean?

As others have observed, he came back for trial - though in the event it was never held, and by then was looking increasingly unlikely.

What are you saying he should have done - led a platoon of die-hards on a suicide ride into the midst of Grant's army?.

I'm saying at the end of the day Davis was a petty tyrant and a coward not a martyr.

 

[TheYoungPretender]

I disagree, with respect, TF.

Because if THAT is your definition of "low intensity conflict," LOTS of places would qualify. If you are talking about Klan activities, then we must say that much of the Midwest was suffering from low intensity conflict, since the Klan was, if anything, even stronger and more active in Illinois, Indiana, etc. than it was in the Deep South in the early 20th century. And last I checked, the Midwest did not secede during the Civil War. To the extent that racial strife existed, it was in many ways a phenomenon distinct and independent from (albeit, of course, overlapping in certain cases) the Civil War and Southern national identity.

To me, the astonishing thing is not that we can find violent episodes like the Colfax Massacre, but rather that, after such a sanguinary and zealous civil war, there were so few of them, and such a relatively quick political reconciliation. This is not to sugarcoat Reconstruction, either in terms of what black freedmen suffered or how long it took the South to recover from wartime devastation (and memories lingered longer in the South, and were more bitter, no question). It's just that, relative to the aftermath of other major civil wars in modern and early modern history, our postwar was astonishingly mild.

Except that kind of special pleading ignores the scale, and the collusion of local law enforcement in many cases. One, the scale of lynchings in the South was considerably higher than in the Midwest or West. Those cases had incidents. Numerically, the South had an industrial era culling of the Helots, a policy that really seems to have been "kill one randomly every so often to keep the rest in line."

Secondly, outside of the post-war South, there needed to be some legal excuse, and there was occasionally legal action taken against participants in lynchings. Wheras in the South, the population could burn off body parts with blow torches with the police looking on. There's a reason you needed the FBI to investigated lynchings during the Civil Rights Movement.

So yes, there were no campaigns of partisans striking federal troops from secret bases during Reconstruction. There were just guerillas fading into and out of their daily lives, striking at the people the Federal military were there to support. They were willing to cause casualties and inflict damage in support of their goals. They were trying to outlast the forces sent to to oppose them.

So how is what the South did not an insurgency? It's the textbook definition of one. It just happens to put the Moonlight and Magnolias into the same historical club as the VC - but why is that such an unmentionable thing?

Hmm. How bad was it?

1) Tens of thousands of extra-judicial executions?

The numbers on extrajudicial killings during and after Reconstruction are quite horrifying. Southern Poverty Law Center among others have done the research on it. For anyone who looks at some the particularly gruesome public executions of the middle ages that involved fire and torture and wondered "how did people bring themselves to do that?" there are people still living in Senior care facilities across the South who would be able to tell you.

 

[Athelstane]

John Brown was willing to die for his beliefs Davis was not. There's more differences in there views but fundamentally that's to me the main difference.

Oh, I think Davis was quite willing to die for his beliefs. Certainly no one questioned his courage in the Mexican War, where he helped turn the tide at Buena Vista. Davis had serious, even grave, character flaws, but I don't think it's fair to say lack of sacrifice or or courage were among them.

At the end of the war, of course, Northern opponents were willing to believe the worst of him, and it was too easy for some to embellish reports that he was captured disguised in women's clothing (see cartoon below):

In fact, he happened to have his wife's overcoat draped over him, which he used to befuddle the Union troops in an unsuccessful approach to throw one of them off their horses.

Davis's real preference was to serve as a combat commander, which would have been a better role for him (though I would hate to have been his superior). He was not a very good president, but as TFSmith and I were discussing on his excellent timeline some weeks back, he was probably the best of a bad lot of presidential candidates under consideration at Montgomery, at least with Breckinridge out of the picture.

As for John Brown, he was a pretty unlikable (and quite bloodthirsty) fellow himself, a real fanatic, albeit one with a good cause...

 

[TheYoungPretender]

Oh, I think Davis was quite willing to die for his beliefs. Certainly no one questioned his courage in the Mexican War, where he helped turn the tide at Buena Vista. Davis had serious, even grave, character flaws, but I don't think it's fair to say lack of sacrifice or or courage were among them.

At the end of the war, of course, Northern opponents were willing to believe the worst of him, and it was too easy for some to embellish reports that he was captured disguised in women's clothing (see cartoon below):

In fact, he happened to have his wife's overcoat draped over him, which he used to befuddle the Union troops in an unsuccessful approach to throw one of them off their horses.

Davis's real preference was to serve as a combat commander, which would have been a better role for him (though I would hate to have been his superior). He was not a very good president, but as TFSmith and I were discussing on his excellent timeline some weeks back, he was probably the best of a bad lot of presidential candidates under consideration at Montgomery, at least with Breckinridge out of the picture.

As for John Brown, he was a pretty unlikable (and quite bloodthirsty) fellow himself, a real fanatic, albeit one with a good cause...

Has anyone ever looked at the aspect of the South's situation? There's a real lack of decent politicians from the elites of the pre-Civil War South. You have a lot of would-be Catos and Ciceros, but no Caeser or Pompey to hold them all together. Jefferson Davis was a rigid semi-authoritiarian without the political gifts necessary for the delicate role of executive, at the top of a Constitutional system that was a weird balance of weak, but occasionally dictatorial. On the other hand, other options all seem to have been mad as hatters.

Is this the PoD our Moonlight and Magnolias are looking for? Something that generates a politician who knows how its done?

 

[Athelstane]

Has anyone ever looked at the aspect of the South's situation? There's a real lack of decent politicians from the elites of the pre-Civil War South. You have a lot of would-be Catos and Ciceros, but no Caeser or Pompey to hold them all together. Jefferson Davis was a rigid semi-authoritiarian without the political gifts necessary for the delicate role of executive, at the top of a Constitutional system that was a weird balance of weak, but occasionally dictatorial. On the other hand, other options all seem to have been mad as hatters.

Is this the PoD our Moonlight and Magnolias are looking for? Something that generates a politician who knows how its done?

I think Breckinridge would have been capable. He was also popular - he won more votes in his 1860 US presidential election than Davis did in his 1861 Confederate presidential election. But then Davis was a hard man to like.

But Breckinridge was a Border State man, an heir of Clay, not Calhoun; he only went South reluctantly, and he was not on offer in February 1861 when the CSA was choosing its first president.

But the Deep South men on offer were a pretty poor bunch. Not that the Deep South didn't have any decent politicians. But Sam Houston and Judah Benjamin weren't in the running, either.

 

[TFSmith121]

Not really...

After another decade of endless war and conscription more States than not might have wanted out of the failed Union. Already by 1864 several Great Lake States were being kept in the War only by federal occupation.

Not really ... You may want to look at the numbers in Congress and the state capiitals in terms of the '62 and '64 elections.

Best,

 

[TFSmith121]

True enough in the US, thankfully

It's not ignored today. Far from it.

True enough in the US, thankfully; the historical wheel has turned enough beyond Dunning et al.

Having said that, some of the rebellion's biggest "fans" - especially outside of the U.S. - tend to look past the realities...

Must be the spiffy uniforms...

Best,

 

[TFSmith121]

It was, actually...

Was that so different from normal?

From my recollection of Huckleberry Finn (yes, I know it's fiction, but its author grew up in those parts and knew whereof he wrote) local feuds quite often verged on a sort of low level civil war. Mid 19C America (esp the South and West) tolerated levels of violence that would be considered atrocious today.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the point about extrajudicial murder of certain elements of the southern population after 1865 vis a vis before 1865 is that before 1865, such acts were neither extrajudicial nor murder, essentially.

Even self-defense by such as not recognized as such...

As Celia found out.

Best,

 

[TheYoungPretender]

After another decade of endless war and conscription more States than not might have wanted out of the failed Union. Already by 1864 several Great Lake States were being kept in the War only by federal occupation.

Hold on, WTF? I'm curious as to the source of that, living in that region of the country myself.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

Hold on, WTF? I'm curious as to the source of that, living in that region of the country myself.

Actually so would I, since Lincoln won pretty handily in that region OTL.