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

[TFSmith121]

Yes, but the contention is (I think)

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.

Yes, but the contention is (I think) is whether Reconstruction under either Lincoln for the whole of the 1865-68 term, or under a sucessor rather than Johnson if Lincoln was, in fact, assassinated, coupled with a more "typical" policy toward defeated rebels (as witness the fates of the typical rebel against the crown in Ireland or Canada in the Nineteenth Century), and a stronger federal presence in the south, AND something resembling Fusion politics, would have yielded a more civil society in the southern US in the period 1865-1965.

We know what happened, of course; hard to see the items suggested above leading to a "worse" century than what happened historically.

Again, I'm not setting the bar especially high, here.

Best,

 

[Mikestone8]

Yes, but the contention is (I think) is whether Reconstruction under either Lincoln for the whole of the 1865-68 term, or under a sucessor rather than Johnson if Lincoln was, in fact, assassinated, coupled with a more "typical" policy toward defeated rebels (as witness the fates of the typical rebel against the crown in Ireland or Canada in the Nineteenth Century), and a stronger federal presence in the south, AND something resembling Fusion politics, would have yielded a more civil society in the southern US in the period 1865-1965.

We know what happened, of course; hard to see the items suggested above leading to a "worse" century than what happened historically.

Again, I'm not setting the bar especially high, here.

Best,

It depends what you mean by "worse".

If you get a POTUS other than Johnson, that probably means you get a limited Black franchise imposed, giving the vote to Blacks who had served in the Union Army, and/or could read and write a section of the US Constitution. This would probably satisfy enough Republicans to secure the readmission of the Southern states. Trouble is, of course, that this means you don't get a 15th Amendment, and possibly not even a 14th - which is bad news for any Civil Rights movement later on. The Freedmen do a bit better initially, but they and their descendants are in a weaker position long-term.

Andrew Johnson doesn't get the credit he deserves for being (with Thaddeus Stevens) the co-author of Radical Reconstruction. It was his over-eagerness to reconcile the South, tolerating Black Codes etc, which provoked Congress into embracing full Black suffrage in 1867. Take him away, and that in all probability doesn't happen.

 

[usertron2020]

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

Its not just on the subject of racism, either. When people are determined to commit violence, and they are specifically prevented from doing so 24/7, they really do think that THAT constitutes "tyranny".

I remember an MSNBC special on a state-of-the-art brand new prison built specifically to prevent violence by convicts AGAINST convicts and correctional officers. The building looked similar to the ancient NYC jail known as "The Toombs", but that was where the similarities stopped.

Each floor was built as a very wide circular structure, with a guard in a separate monitoring station (where the convicts couldn't reach him) on each floor in the dead center of each floor. The guard in this central point had a battery of monitors that allowed a 100% field of vision at all times everywhere on his floor.. IOW: no blind spots. At All. Ever. In the entire prison. Even sabotage of cameras wasn't possible.

How did the prisoners feel about this? They called the prison a "concentration camp". Sure. If you're a hard bitten violent career criminal and/or gang banger, of course you're going to be world class pissed that you are in a prison where you can't rape your fellow prisoners, buy and sell drugs, and intimidate the guards.

The fact that they enjoyed better prison privileges meant nothing to them, as they were accustomed to getting their own "privileges" on their own.

Being stuck in a prison environment where they couldn't commit crimes was their own brand of being tyrannized. Just like the post-ACW Southern Whites not being able to tyrannize Blacks was "tyranny"

 

[Mikestone8]

Its not just on the subject of racism, either. When people are determined to commit violence, and they are specifically prevented from doing so 24/7, they really do think that THAT constitutes "tyranny".

I remember an MSNBC special on a state-of-the-art brand new prison built specifically to prevent violence by convicts AGAINST convicts and correctional officers. The building looked similar to the ancient NYC jail known as "The Toombs", but that was where the similarities stopped.

Each floor was built as a very wide circular structure, with a guard in a separate monitoring station (where the convicts couldn't reach him) on each floor in the dead center of each floor. The guard in this central point had a battery of monitors that allowed a 100% field of vision at all times everywhere on his floor.. IOW: no blind spots. At All. Ever. In the entire prison. Even sabotage of cameras wasn't possible.

How did the prisoners feel about this? They called the prison a "concentration camp". Sure. If you're a hard bitten violent career criminal and/or gang banger, of course you're going to be world class pissed that you are in a prison where you can't rape your fellow prisoners, buy and sell drugs, and intimidate the guards.

The fact that they enjoyed better prison privileges meant nothing to them, as they were accustomed to getting their own "privileges" on their own.

Being stuck in a prison environment where they couldn't commit crimes was their own brand of being tyrannized. Just like the post-ACW Southern Whites not being able to tyrannize Blacks was "tyranny"

and they responded accordingly.

Sounds a lot like drug withdrawal symptoms.

They were having to go "cold turkey" from their favourite activities (rape and intimidation)

 

[Athelstane]

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,

Well, your best bet is for Lincoln to live. No other man would have had his political capital and moral authority; and very few had his political skills by that point.

What Lincoln would or would not have done in regards to the plight of southern blacks is harder to make out; he views evolved. Even for him, it would have been a very tough challenge.

 

[Mikestone8]

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.

On further thought, perhaps better parallels than Brown might be Andrew Johnson and Woodrow Wilson. All three men had the same "Everything has to be my way" cast of mind. Was there something in the drinking water down south?

 

[Mikestone8]

Well, your best bet is for Lincoln to live. No other man would have had his political capital and moral authority; and very few had his political skills by that point.

What Lincoln would or would not have done in regards to the plight of southern blacks is harder to make out; he views evolved. Even for him, it would have been a very tough challenge.

And of course, however he may "evolve", his lodestar has always been putting the Union back together. If reconciliation and race equality are incompatible, there's little doubt which he'll choose - however sad he may be about it.

 

[TFSmith121]

Sure, but a functioning civil society is a lot

Sure, but a functioning civil society (as in one where one-third of the population are treated like US citizens, not as they were historically) is significantly more likely if the Forrests of the era have departed for greener pastures...

Best,

 

[Mikestone8]

Sure, but a functioning civil society (as in one where one-third of the population are treated like US citizens, not as they were historically) is significantly more likely if the Forrests of the era have departed for greener pastures...

Best,

Why?

Does it somehow make a significant difference if the KKK is led by a Confederate Lieutenant instead of a Confederate Brigadier?

 

[usertron2020]

On further thought, perhaps better parallels than Brown might be Andrew Johnson and Woodrow Wilson. All three men had the same "Everything has to be my way" cast of mind. Was there something in the drinking water down south?

Nope. It was hot, humid, and with no air conditioning.

Sure, but a functioning civil society (as in one where one-third of the population are treated like US citizens, not as they were historically) is significantly more likely if the Forrests of the era have departed for greener pastures...

Best,

Meh. A hundred Forrests were ready to take his/their place. Remember that Forrest "resigned" from the KKK not because they had become too violent for him (his stated reason), but because he was their known commander. In time, he would have faced a hanging himself had he remained their public face.

Why?

Does it somehow make a significant difference if the KKK is led by a Confederate Lieutenant instead of a Confederate Brigadier?

Forrest was a full general by the time he surrendered, IIRC. In command of the entire CSA army between the Mississippi river and Johnston's army. This is why he wasn't shot on sight.

 

[Locke01]

Nope. It was hot, humid, and with no air conditioning.



Meh. A hundred Forrests were ready to take his/their place. Remember that Forrest "resigned" from the KKK not because they had become too violent for him (his stated reason), but because he was their known commander. In time, he would have faced a hanging himself had he remained their public face.



Forrest was a full general by the time he surrendered, IIRC. In command of the entire CSA army between the Mississippi river and Johnston's army. This is why he wasn't shot on sight.

Forrest was a lieutenant general. At war's end, he was a subordinate to Richard Taylor who commanded the Department of Alabama, Mississippi and East Louisiana. Forrest commanded the Cavalry Corps of that department. Forrest never attained the grade of full general and nor did he ever command an army in the field.

 

[Mikestone8]

Forrest was a lieutenant general. At war's end, he was a subordinate to Richard Taylor who commanded the Department of Alabama, Mississippi and East Louisiana. Forrest commanded the Cavalry Corps of that department. Forrest never attained the grade of full general and nor did he ever command an army in the field.

And as for why he wasn't shot (on sight or otherwise) I'm not aware of any generals who were. That could happen to immigrant nobodies like Wirz, but not to respectable senior officers. Dog did not eat dog.

 

[Athelstane]

And as for why he wasn't shot (on sight or otherwise) I'm not aware of any generals who were. That could happen to immigrant nobodies like Wirz, but not to respectable senior officers. Dog did not eat dog.

Because he surrendered per the terms offered by the U.S., and inquiries by both Congress and the U.S. Army in 1864 could not establish that he had any responsibility - as even Sherman (who called Forrest "the very devil") was forced to concede. Welles and Stanton at one point suggested trying him, but nothing ever came of it. It seems to have been a can of worms that neither the Lincoln or Johnson Administrations were eager to open. My own sense is that a) it was a massacre by any reasonable definition, b) Forrest's culpability in encouraging or leading it cannot be established, beyond his nominal responsibility as commander, given the fog of war, and c) Forrest wasn't too terribly upset, by his own admission, with what happened after the fact, regardless of his efforts to belatedly put a halt to it.

Those interested in reading more in-depth on Fort Pillow ought to look at John Cimprich’s book, Fort Pillow – A Civil War Massacre and Public Memory (LSU PRess) - which I think makes a fair attempt at an objective analysis of what happened. (Cimprich doesn't feel there is enough evidence to either condemn or exonerate Forrest.)

To Forrest's credit, he penned a more generous farewell address to his troops to reconcile them to surrender than even Lee did. It is worth reading in full, but one key excerpt:

Civil war, such as you have just passed through naturally engenders feelings of animosity, hatred, and revenge. It is our duty to divest ourselves of all such feelings; and as far as it is in our power to do so, to cultivate friendly feelings towards those with whom we have so long contended, and heretofore so widely, but honestly, differed. Neighborhood feuds, personal animosities, and private differences should be blotted out; and, when you return home, a manly, straightforward course of conduct will secure the respect of your enemies. Whatever your responsibilities may be to Government, to society, or to individuals meet them like men.

The attempt made to establish a separate and independent Confederation has failed; but the consciousness of having done your duty faithfully, and to the end, will, in some measure, repay for the hardships you have undergone.

Coming from Forrest, of course, that address had a lot of impact. Forrest could have led a heck of a guerrilla campaign if had wanted to.

Forrest was an interesting man, and capable of surprises. There's evidence that his racial views mellowed in his final years. That will not excuse his earlier biography as slave trader or as Klan leader (which was itself a complicated story), but it makes him out to be a more complex figure than we often like to credit.

 

[LHB]

And of course, however he may "evolve", his lodestar has always been putting the Union back together. If reconciliation and race equality are incompatible, there's little doubt which he'll choose - however sad he may be about it.

Lincoln called for Black suffrage in the last speech he ever gave in his life and his last public speech prior to his assassination. John Wilkes Booth was present for said speech and in his diary vowed, "That is the last speech he will make" and killed him three days later. There's a number of historians who argue it was Lincoln's call for Black rights that pushed him over the edge to murder. That doesn't guarantee he's going to push for it right out the gate but odds are he was going to fight for it and with the moral and political capital coming from being the Great Emancipator who kept the Union together he could have made it happen.

 

[usertron2020]

Athelstane

Consider what Shelby Foote said of what Forrest's granddaughter had to say about this, just a few years before she died.

When Foote told her that the ACW produced two original geniuses, her grandfather & Abraham Lincoln, she drew quiet, and said: "Well, you know, Mr. Lincoln was never very well thought of in our household..." This, some 130 years later.

 

[TFSmith121]

If the Confederate brigadier (who made his fortune as a slave trader)

Why?

Does it somehow make a significant difference if the KKK is led by a Confederate Lieutenant instead of a Confederate Brigadier?

If the Confederate brigadier (who made his fortune as a slave trader, after all) ended up kicking at the end of a rope after being convicted of treason and murder of POWs, yeah, it might...

One can only hope.

Best,

 

[Mikestone8]

If the Confederate brigadier (who made his fortune as a slave trader, after all) ended up kicking at the end of a rope after being convicted of treason and murder of POWs, yeah, it might...

One can only hope.

Best,

We hanged any number of rebellious Irishmen, but for some reason that never seemed to make the survivors any more loyal to us.

 

[Mikestone8]

Lincoln called for Black suffrage in the last speech he ever gave in his life and his last public speech prior to his assassination. John Wilkes Booth was present for said speech and in his diary vowed, "That is the last speech he will make" and killed him three days later. There's a number of historians who argue it was Lincoln's call for Black rights that pushed him over the edge to murder. That doesn't guarantee he's going to push for it right out the gate but odds are he was going to fight for it and with the moral and political capital coming from being the Great Emancipator who kept the Union together he could have made it happen.

He advocated a limited Black suffrage - the "very intelligent" (ie literate?) and those who had served in the Union Army. That would not be enough to threaten white (or Democratic Party) control of Southern States [1]. And of course, once those states have been readmitted, how does he enforce even that?

[1] Iirc even Andrew Johnson urged the Southern provisional governors to concede that much, though he wasn't willing to make it an order, as Lincoln might have done.

 

[usertron2020]

We hanged any number of rebellious Irishmen, but for some reason that never seemed to make the survivors any more loyal to us.

Explains the current situation as to who has what.

He advocated a limited Black suffrage - the "very intelligent" (ie literate?) and those who had served in the Union Army. That would not be enough to threaten white (or Democratic Party) control of Southern States [1]. And of course, once those states have been readmitted, how does he enforce even that?

[1] Iirc even Andrew Johnson urged the Southern provisional governors to concede that much, though he wasn't willing to make it an order, as Lincoln might have done.

Of course, based on the registered voters rolls in the 1950s, for these rednecks (sorry, but the word fits here) just ONE voting Black was one too many. Even President Eisenhower, no champion of civil rights himself, was absolutely appalled when he was first shown the rock bottom levels of Black voter registration in the South, and how so many Southern counties had absolutely no Black registered voters whatsoever, despite having a larger population ratio of Blacks to Whites in some of those counties.

 

[leopard9]

Explains the current situation as to who has what.



Of course, based on the registered voters rolls in the 1950s, for these rednecks (sorry, but the word fits here) just ONE voting Black was one too many. Even President Eisenhower, no champion of civil rights himself, was absolutely appalled when he was first shown the rock bottom levels of Black voter registration in the South, and how so many Southern counties had absolutely no Black registered voters whatsoever, despite having a larger population ratio of Blacks to Whites in some of those counties.

Dumb question, but what accounted for the deep seated irrational hatred of blacks by whites? Looking back it's baffling and disturbing to me that one group of people could hate another group that hadn't done anything to them and just wanted to continue their lives. The way white people have treated black people historically, you'd think it was blacks that enslaved whites and enacted Jim Crow laws.