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

[thekingsguard]

I could imagine if a point was made to take the lands and properties of the former plantation owners who pushed for the war and have them divided and given to the mostly poor Southern men who fought it, it even could be popular.

It even feeds into the Lost Cause/Brother vs. Brother mentality that developed post-war.

"The bastards in Montogmery and Richmond may have been fighting to keep slavery, but our forefathers were just defending their homes. So post war, the yanks strung them up, and our homes got a little bit bigger. Mighty kind of em' even if they are damn yankees."

 

[Mikestone8]

I could imagine if a point was made to take the lands and properties of the former plantation owners who pushed for the war and have them divided and given to the mostly poor Southern men who fought it, it even could be popular.

It even feeds into the Lost Cause/Brother vs. Brother mentality that developed post-war.

"The bastards in Montogmery and Richmond may have been fighting to keep slavery, but our forefathers were just defending their homes. So post war, the yanks strung them up, and our homes got a little bit bigger. Mighty kind of em' even if they are damn yankees."

Trouble is that the poorer whites were often the most racist ones - look at how things went around the turn of the century - so courting them implies abandoning the Freedmen. While class divisions among whites did exist to some degree, in that era (and for long afterwards) they were trivial compared to the divide between Whites (esp poorer ones) and Blacks.

Indeed, iirc many of the "Scalawag" elements, who actually did flirt with the Republican party postwar ,actually were planters or other former bigwigs - even former rebel generals like Longstreet. So schemes like this would hit the government's potential allies as much as its enemies.

 

[historynutty]

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,

Yep State capital in Indiana was controlled by federal bayonets as were the polling places.

 

[TheYoungPretender]

Yep State capital in Indiana was controlled by federal bayonets as were the polling places.

Are there sources for this you could link too... that are not hosted on Free Republic?

 

[Workable Goblin]

How do they "sustain" anything once the Army has reverted to peacetime levels?

It's all very well to take a hard line when you've got over half a million bluecoats with which to enforce it. But once it's down to less than 30,000 - most of them needed out west - is there much you can really do except let the South do its own thing?

What they needed was the FBI. It wasn't the Army, mostly, that finally enforced civil rights in the South; it was cops (as problematic as the police have been in other contexts). Sure, the 101st Airborne was important, but it didn't do the majority of the work. Prosaically speaking, a national police force doesn't push the same buttons as having a large, standing, occupying army does, nor does it have the same footprint on the ground.

I don't quite see an FBI being the headspace of the 1860s, though, especially given that it does still push a few buttons about dictatorship and what not.

 

[Athelstane]

"The first generation" after Appomatox would depend on how heavy the Reconstruction regimes controlled political power at the state level, certainly, but Grant's policies showed it could be done; couple that level of federal control with accomodationist politics along Fusion lines and a stronger line taken against ex-rebels (somewhere between history and "deport or execute 'em all") and I think it is arguable the rule of law could have been sustained in the ex-rebel states from 1865 onward. That may be a high bar, but I don't think it was unreachable, and I think the GOP's policies toward the South after Grant's Administration could have been more forceful, not less ... the point of departure is placing Johnson on the ticket in 1864, I think.

Best,

I suppose I am more skeptical; but we are of one mind, Mr. Smith, in thinking that Johnson was a poor pick.

The question then becomes who Lincoln SHOULD have picked. That's an interesting question. I have never thought about it before.

 

[Athelstane]

THERE ARE NO STRINGS ON ME



Not going to do much good if they are coming at you masked, outnumbering you twenty to one, at 3 AM. Especially when you are considering that these first generation KKKers were so balled up in blind hate that they were more than willing to see the first and second of their own number die coming through the front door in order to kill their lynching target. "casualties of war", is all. Not to mention that they will always have superior numbers over all, never mind on selected night raids.

I mean really: Since when do terrorists ever fight fair?

Well, it's better than nothing. Troops and federal marshals can't be everywhere, even if you massively upgrade your footprint, as some are suggesting. If I'm a freed slave, I'd far prefer a scenario where I'm given a free firearm (and ammo) to have on hand in my house than one where I don't. And if you're a Klansman or lynch mob, you'll have to reckon on the chances that your target might not only have a gun, but might be on guard enough to use it. Maybe you'll even have second thoughts.

The key would likely be to cluster freemen homes in small communities for mutual protection. A little of that did happen.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

Well, it's better than nothing. Troops and federal marshals can't be everywhere, even if you massively upgrade your footprint, as some are suggesting. If I'm a freed slave, I'd far prefer a scenario where I'm given a free firearm (and ammo) to have on hand in my house than one where I don't. And if you're a Klansman or lynch mob, you'll have to reckon on the chances that your target might not only have a gun, but might be on guard enough to use it. Maybe you'll even have second thoughts.

The key would likely be to cluster freemen homes in small communities for mutual protection. A little of that did happen.

That did happen though. At least on the small scale, but it lacked support and even clustered together the freedmen couldn't be on guard 100% of the time. Even at the Colfax massacre the freedmen were armed but the paramilitaries overpowered and slaughtered them in the aftermath.

It's a hard fight when you're outnumbered and constantly suffering from arson and midnight attacks. The paramilitaries were more than willing to take casualties in order to keep white supremacy in place.

 

[Mikestone8]

What they needed was the FBI. It wasn't the Army, mostly, that finally enforced civil rights in the South; it was cops (as problematic as the police have been in other contexts). Sure, the 101st Airborne was important, but it didn't do the majority of the work. Prosaically speaking, a national police force doesn't push the same buttons as having a large, standing, occupying army does, nor does it have the same footprint on the ground.

I don't quite see an FBI being the headspace of the 1860s, though, especially given that it does still push a few buttons about dictatorship and what not.

Isn't the problem the same in both cases?

Can you name a single politician - of whatever political stripe - who was advocating either an FBI-type organisation or a big increase in the size of the army?

And anyway, why bother? The only reason for giving political rights to the Freedmen was to ensure that the southern states were governed by men loyal to the US. Once it had become clear that the ex-Rebs had given up on secession, weren't the Freedmen essentially "surplus to requirements"? Wasn't it then far simpler to leave the White South a reasonably free hand in return for its loyalty to the restored Union?

 

[Workable Goblin]

Isn't the problem the same in both cases?

Can you name a single politician - of whatever political stripe - who was advocating either an FBI-type organisation or a big increase in the size of the army?

Yes, that's why I pointed out that it wasn't in headspace and probably would push a few buttons. I don't think the reasons behind not having an FBI-like organization and not having a larger, ongoing occupying force were the same, but either way they weren't really an option. But if you could figure out a plausible way to create a federal law enforcement organization before or during the Civil War, then that might have some interesting post-war ramifications.

And anyway, why bother? The only reason for giving political rights to the Freedmen was to ensure that the southern states were governed by men loyal to the US. Once it had become clear that the ex-Rebs had given up on secession, weren't the Freedmen essentially "surplus to requirements"? Wasn't it then far simpler to leave the White South a reasonably free hand in return for its loyalty to the restored Union?

The whole thing was complicated, too much so to boil down to a simple "it was all to ensure loyalty." That was a factor, true, but so was a sense of moral duty to the Freedmen, and a desire to establish Republican majorities in the South. If it were a question of merely allowing law enforcement to do its job rather than ruling the place as if it were a conquered territory, there would probably be less Northern opposition to ongoing attempts to fight lynching and other rights violations. Southern opposition would also probably be a tad more muted, again because of the lack of a literal occupying army, but only a tad (considering their behavior later...)

 

[usertron2020]

Well, it's better than nothing. Troops and federal marshals can't be everywhere, even if you massively upgrade your footprint, as some are suggesting. If I'm a freed slave, I'd far prefer a scenario where I'm given a free firearm (and ammo) to have on hand in my house than one where I don't. And if you're a Klansman or lynch mob, you'll have to reckon on the chances that your target might not only have a gun, but might be on guard enough to use it. Maybe you'll even have second thoughts.

The key would likely be to cluster freemen homes in small communities for mutual protection. A little of that did happen.

The trick is anyone strong enough and willing enough to fight like this is more than ready to just plain pull up stakes AND LEAVE. Hence the Great Migration of the one hundred years post-ACW

 

[leopard9]

Can you incentivize people to treat each other equally without it looking like the overbearing Union is oppressing the gallant South?

 

[usertron2020]

Can you incentivize people to treat each other equally without it looking like the overbearing Union is oppressing the gallant South?

Good point. In D.W. Griffith's "Birth of a Nation/The Klansman", you see one white family horrified at the sight of free blacks walking the streets in safety, 'as if they owned the place'. As the film put it, the poor whites of the South "...were being denied their Aryan (1) Rights".

1) Griffiths' words. In 1915. About the only good thing you could say about that movie was that it helped spark the founding of the NAACP.

As long as the Southern Whites were NOT being allowed to tyrannize Blacks whenever the hell they felt like it, THAT was tyranny in Southron eyes

 

[TheYoungPretender]

As long as the Southern Whites were NOT being allowed to tyrannize Blacks whenever the hell they felt like it, THAT was tyranny in Southron eyes

Indeed, that is a common thread of culture in some parts of the country back then. And not always back then.

 

[thekingsguard]

Trouble is that the poorer whites were often the most racist ones - look at how things went around the turn of the century - so courting them implies abandoning the Freedmen. While class divisions among whites did exist to some degree, in that era (and for long afterwards) they were trivial compared to the divide between Whites (esp poorer ones) and Blacks.

Indeed, iirc many of the "Scalawag" elements, who actually did flirt with the Republican party postwar ,actually were planters or other former bigwigs - even former rebel generals like Longstreet. So schemes like this would hit the government's potential allies as much as its enemies.

I always thought the reason the poor whites hated the freedman was resentment that they were given land/help while they were still poor, plus manipulation by the re-instated planter elite. I figure you get rid of the planters and give the poor whites as much a stake in the reforged South as the freedman, you might see it reduced.

 

[TFSmith121]

Only if you believe the Constituion is a suicide pact

Yep State capital in Indiana was controlled by federal bayonets as were the polling places.

Only if you believe the Constitution is a suicide pact.

Oliver Morton was the freely elected governor of the state who supported the war effort whole-heartedly; Indiana, as proven by Morgan's raid, was as close to the front lines as Pennsylvania, Ohio, Kentucky, etc., and so he had the right and the duty to insure the state remained at peace. Given what was at stake, Pogue's Run and the rest were minor incidents.

Best,

 

[TFSmith121]

Well, that's the question...

I suppose I am more skeptical; but we are of one mind, Mr. Smith, in thinking that Johnson was a poor pick.

The question then becomes who Lincoln SHOULD have picked. That's an interesting question. I have never thought about it before.

Again, I'm not setting the bar particularly high - simply that the rule of law remain in place, for all US citizens, in the American south in the period 1865-1965.

That requires Lincoln's survival and/or a sucessor dedicated to that proposition; stronger punishment of rebel leaders; stronger tools, military and legal/law enforcement/judicial at the federal and state levels after 1865.

Not simple, but not insurmountable, either. I'm not asking for women's suffrage and Title IX in 1870...

Best,

 

[Mikestone8]

I always thought the reason the poor whites hated the freedman was resentment that they were given land/help while they were still poor, plus manipulation by the re-instated planter elite. I figure you get rid of the planters and give the poor whites as much a stake in the reforged South as the freedman, you might see it reduced.

Why do you keep dragging the "planter elite" into it?

When that class lost power toward the turn of the century, the Southern governments got more racist rather than less. The poorer whites had never needed any "manipulation" to be anti-Black.

Come to that, many (perhaps most) Northern whites were anti-Black, so far as they thought about Blacks at all. Even Northern states were voting down Black suffrage as late as 1867, and when the Republican leadership decided to pass the 15th Amendment, you'll notice that they carefully postponed it to the lame duck session, after the 1868 election was safely out of the way, and Republican Legislatures would have ample time to ratify it before facing their voters again. Being anti-Black was the "default position" for most whites at that time.

 

[TFSmith121]

Prejudice, even racism, is one thing:

Why do you keep dragging the "planter elite" into it?

When that class lost power toward the turn of the century, the Southern governments got more racist rather than less. The poorer whites had never needed any "manipulation" to be anti-Black.

Come to that, many (perhaps most) Northern whites were anti-Black, so far as they thought about Blacks at all. Even Northern states were voting down Black suffrage as late as 1867, and when the Republican leadership decided to pass the 15th Amendment, you'll notice that they carefully postponed it to the lame duck session, after the 1868 election was safely out of the way, and Republican Legislatures would have ample time to ratify it before facing their voters again. Being anti-Black was the "default position" for most whites at that time.

Prejudice, even racism is one thing; absolute denial of civil rights as a matter of state policy, often with the assistance, covertly and overtly via violence sanctioned by the elite, is another.

Best,

 

[Mikestone8]

Prejudice, even racism is one thing; absolute denial of civil rights as a matter of state policy, often with the assistance, covertly and overtly via violence sanctioned by the elite, is another.

Best,

But the South doesn't need Northerners to go that far.

It only requires them to stand aside while the Southern whites themselves do it - a much lower hurdle in an era when maintaining law and order was seen as almost entirely an internal state matter, with little or no Federal role. Note the complete unconcern with which official Washington had viewed the expulsion of the Latter-day Saints from Missouri and Illinois - even before the polygamy issue came up. And as late as 1861 two fifths even of congressional Republicans had been willing to vote for the Corwin Amendment.