More or less what I'm also proposing: It's in the US government's best interests if the Planters accept fire sale prices to their land in an attempt to save their skin and move west, where they're now fully dependent on the US government for protection while the South is now more open to equitable division between Freedmen and Poor Whites. It's a soft exile that prevents the Planters from interfering in the new order of the South, while also pursuing the more cynical colonial desires of the US Federal Government, not just in land sales for money but also for control over the interior because, let's be real, the US is still a colonial settlement-based nation in this time.
On the most idealistic branch of that, the Natives have a much better argument vis a vis the Federal government in opposing Planter-driven settlement versus Exoduster settlement. The Feds will be less willing to accept Former Planters' intrusions on treaty lands than they would more conventional White settlers or Exodusters, and the Great American Desert could be used to keep both groups the Federal Government distrusts in conflict with one another without favoring either.
Yeah, I was also strongly considering that. I don't think it'd be out of character for Lincoln to offer some "compensation" to owners of confiscated properties or former Confederate leaders as long as they use that money to leave the country or go out West, all under the implicit threat that staying would result in them being imprisoned and not receiving anything. The idea of Natives using this for their own benefit is an intriguing one that I hadn't considered, but seems very interesting indeed!
For sure. Could also allow for the poor whites, remaining yeoman and the freedman to come together and actually forge prominent bonds, along with also nipping in the bud any potential problem movements, at least some of them at any rate.
For sure. I could see the Natives getting a modest boon, if namely by keeping an eye on the former planters. I could see some future movements causing some trouble. Some planters mixing in with the Mormons leading to a potential Deseret 2.0 that the Natives would report to the feds (who'd be like "Oh God, not again.")
Removing the old leaders also would allow new leaders, who can be expected to be at least less hostile to Reconstruction, to the fore. The presence of so many old leaders directly fed and strengthened terrorism, because these Bourbons retained their lands and influence and thus pleasing them, earning their esteem, and following their orders was a matter of great importance for youth who wished to achieve respectability and influence of their own. Without them, supporting or at least tolerating the Republican Party and Black voters would not render one a social and economic pariah. Many more would even come to advocate in favor of Black rights if only for their own personal and political advancement.
I just imagined a Mormon leader, ex-Confederate and former slaveholder leading a Deseret rebellion. You Americans sure have some colorful characters.
If it is the former Planter Class that begins enthusiastically embracing Westward expansion, then the Native Americans and their allies could have a strong rhetorical thread to pull upon. That being the notion that what is being forced upon them is simply the old Slaveocracy, taking its first step back towards ascendency.
"Have we not seen, my friends, that this is what they desire for all of us? Have we not seen that they cannot help but seize another and shackle him, force him into labour, that they might never lift a finger, that they might declare themselves the pinnacle of civilisation for having done so? Have we not seen, my friends, that this is their sole and only desire, that the suborning and corruption of the national government, that treason and rebellion, are simply useful expediencies to them, happily employed to shore up their own ghastly privilege?"
"Have we not learnt, my friends, to scour our nation of this poison, lest we allow it to begin to fester? Have we not learnt, my friends, the price of not strangling it in its cradle?"
I mean, I can totally see planters trying to restart the plantation system out west, just now with Natives.
that just gives one more to bite into. something to really chew on, you know? better to read a whole bunch than to have it be over in three good-size paragraphs
Yeah I guess it's good. I personally do like somewhat long updates for the media I follow. It's disappointing to wait long for something small or rushed, and, well, I'm not trying to toot my own horn, but I do believe most of my updates are substantial enough.
I just visited the Greenwood Rising museum in Tusla which tells the story of Black Wall Street and the massacre of 1921. It also had a lot of information about the Exodusters and black settlement of the west, which confirmed that it was driven by the end of Reconstruction and the violence that resulted. With a radical Reconstruction that includes land redistribution and the total suppression of the planters’ power, there would be much less impetus for this movement, although there would still be free black settlers out west that were previously enslaved by Native Americans. In fact, some may still make their fortunes as oilmen by being granted land that was worthless for farming but chock-full of oil deposits. However, on the whole, black people wouldn’t need to flee the South, and their entrepreneurship would be useful in redeveloping the region’s economy. If there’s still a Black Wall Street, it would be in a southern city rather than out west.
That also gets into the question of segregation, which is an issue unto itself. The success of Black Wall Street and its decline in the late 20th century were due not only to racist “urban renewal” projects but also the reduced need after integration for the parallel economy that developed to service the black community. Although some forms of informal segregation will probably exist for awhile ITTL, it won’t have the same dynamic with a more concentrated black population that’s built their own political institutions and economic power.
I think there will be some migration to the North and West, because they are probably still going to be stronger industrially, and the pattern of rural to urban migration is almost universal. But it won't be as massive as OTL's Great Migration. Aside from less oppression and legal equality, the Southern economy may be better due to a more interventionist government, the plantation system being broken, and Black laborers more integrated into the economy. So the "Black Wall Streets" will indeed probably be in Southern cities. Altogether, the American South will probably have an even greater Black population. Maybe 75% of Black Americans instead of 60%? But several cities would probably still have a significant Black population, especially New York.
There probably will still be a somewhat separate "Black economy". IOTL, Black communities often outright advocated and sought separation from White people, whom they understandably saw as oppressors, seeking to build their own communities completely separate from them. They formed their own churches, schools, organizations, charities, syndicates, unions, etc. A better-off Black population would probably strengthen these patterns instead of weakening them, especially outside of urban areas, with Black people preferring Black employers and products, and White people similarly preferring White employers and products. Likewise, the pattern of urban migration is probably inevitable. By this I mean that Black people who move into Southern cities will probably have to settle in marginal areas at the skirts of cities, and will cause White flight when they start to move into the inner city.
I might be underestimating the size of some of these plantations, but I think there will still be Western settlement. Certainly not nearly to the extent that there was in our timeline, but black people are going to come in many varieties and interests. A decent number may just be free or spirits who want to be entrepreneurs out west and explore, While others might want to get away from some very painful memories. After all, not everyone who survived is going to feel comfortable remaining, knowing that they will always be reminded of some of the most painful memories.
What we might see is that these black people will be enabled to leave right away, it might be the late 1860s when an Exoduster movement occurs, but it will be a different type. It will be the type like one former slave I read of years back who, once he learned he was free, simply walked in awe up and down the length of the state basking in his freedom. They will much more closely resemble the actual white pioneers of the Great Lakes than it will the Exodusters of our timeline - free people who, even though there are many opportunities back east, choose to go west just ask the old joke goes about why a man climbed a mountain, because it is there.
Of course, that's a great point but the Exoduster movement was essentially a community driven one, with whole groups of families and neighbors meeting to make travel plans, pool money together, or ask and receive information. A few enterprising youths seeking to move in search of opportunities simply won't have as much influence.
Having fully caught up with the TL now, many thanks to Red for writing it. I think I'm going to be spoiled going forward for American Civil War TLs because of just how effective this story is in showing how brutal the fighting has become. It captures very well the desperation of this sort of conflict. There is nothing else quite like it right now on AH.com, so kudos. It feels very familiar, but also quite alien at the same time.
Thank you very much for your kind words! I have always tried to write this as a slow descent into brutality, so that people ITTL would ask "where did it go so wrong?" similarly to how people wonder that about the French Revolution. All to give this Civil War a completely revolutionary character, but still remaining true to the OTL Civil War.
To address the rest of your post, I do indeed think that we've crossed the point of no return in regards to the relation of Americans to their government. A powerful Federal government will just be seen as a necessity and something obvious, and by now it'd be unthinkable to think of rolling it back to its antebellum character. Given that disorder and violence will continue for years, there won't be any hope of just forgetting the late unpleasantness and dismantling everything that the war built. And Lincoln, similarly to Washington, will have earned a hallowed place in the national imaginary of the US. No matter what, he will always be the man who saved the Union.
The question basically becomes, does a more radical reconstruction guarantee weakening the power of the State Governments relative to the Federal Government. Arkansas (to pick a southern state that has zero chance of the Blacks outvoting the Whites unless the power to vote is removed from *every* Confederate Soldier) still has a *lot* of ability to keep the Blacks down.
It does. If we define Reconstruction as Black people being able to exercise actual political power at a State level through the Republican Party... well, it is pretty much doomed in several states such as Arkansas and Texas and the Upper South. But Federal power, which has already made itself felt, can still guarantee at least a measure of rights for African Americans. The most important would be enduring Black suffrage and officeholding, allowing Black people to hold and wield power within their communities. Similar to the modern day where Democrats can wield power in cities in deep Red States, but ultimately have little hope of seizing power at the State level. So we may expect some discrimination, inequality, and biased laws, but nothing like OTL Jim Crow, and by the time populism sweeps the South there will be many who like the Readjusters in Virginia see the value in appealing to Black voters, forming biracial coalitions. Not perfect, but at least better.
You know, I wonder if there could be a vindication of John Adams. If America enters a more jingoistic and imperialist era, Adams' idea of an American Empire active in foreign policy may serve as inspiration to future presidents.
I have always liked John Adams better than other Founding Fathers (maybe except for Franklin). But thus far there is nothing that could shift the US towards interventionism and imperialism here. If anything, the US could be more isolationist.
That is already the case, IOTL there were efforts to provide pensions for all veterans (in fact, this dates back to the Revolutionary War) and support (including healthcare) for disabled or wounded veterans and their dependents. A lot of this was on the state level, true, but still. The same was, incidentally, true in Britain as well--safety nets for veterans have a long history compared to those for the average person. It's definitely still too early to be talking about proper welfare systems, even if war pensions will probably cover a lot of people.
At the very least the fundamentals of a more activist Federal government are there through the Bureaus. Maybe outright national healthcare and pension systems are not possible yet, but there were OTL proposals for Federal agencies overseeing labor, health, education, etc, that are much more likely to pass, and could lead in the future to national welfare systems much earlier.
How would a successful reconstruction affect the civil rights movement?
That is going to depend on what "successful reconstruction" means. That said, a successful reconstruction will certainly mean ensuring civil rights for African Americans, at least to some degree. So the hypothetical moment will focus less on the basic rights and desegregation since this will be already ensured. Now we do not know what is the result of this timelines reconstruction, except it will be better, so some work will still be needed I suppose. Personally, I expect more focus on interracial marriage and social equality.
Frankly I have always mentally compared what I envision with the Latin American situation. Black minorities in Latin America for the most part didn't face legal barriers like segregation or Jim Crow after emancipation. But discrimination and inequality remained. We even have a succesful example of land reform in most countries that gave land to the Indigenous peoples, yet they remain impoverished and discriminated. Black people, ITTL, will probably face a similar situation - there may be no laws or systems officially banning them from political and economic power, but most likely they will remain poorer, with less opportunities, and marginalized by White society. Future Civil Rights movements will not have to fight for basic things like an end to legal segregation or the vote, but will still have to demand greater social and economic equality.
I’m curious though if the tenth amendment would get curtailed in some capacity as even in modern OTL the debate between state autonomy and federal authority remains murky outside of federal law trumps state law
My 13th amendment kind of did that already, by allowing Congress to recognize rights in its acts that both the Federal government and States have to respect. Together with the Supremacy clause this allows the US Federal government to reign supreme in a way that it can't OTL.
You could have a Southern Homestead Act for Black freedmen and poor Whites focused on formalizing and a Western Homestead Act open to anyone except Confederate high-ranking officers, political figures, planters, and other individuals who contributed materially to the rebellion.
Interestingly, a Southern Homestead Act focused on “solving” the nation’s race issues could be used to steer Chinese Americans into the Black-dominated South. There was Chinese migration into the Mississippi River Delta as early as the 1870s. There are bound to worker shortages on farms and parceled out plantations, with freedmen not wanting to work on White-owned land if and when possible. Chinese migrants could feel those labor shortages.
The Deep South, especially the area around the Gulf Coast in particular, would be an early model of multiracial democracy. At the same time, labor and racial conflict would likely abound in the later part of the 19th and early 20th centuries.
There are already two Southern Homestead Acts. The first simply allotted land to Black soldiers and confirmed that the land redistributed by the Land Bureau would be given a secure title. The second established a formal process for receiving that title, based largely on the Western Homestead Act. We could, however, still see a second Western Homestead Act.
Ill be honest, I think this is alot of projection of modern attitudes towards the past. Thomas Jefferson may of been a Slave Holder and hypocrite, but he also had a very important role in founding and then shaping the psyche of this country. Even with this more brutal Civil War, people are going to value that over his issues with Slavery.
OTOH, there might be more emphasis on figures like John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, and other Founding Fathers who hailed from the North.
Yeah, I mean Jefferson would obviously still be important but Northern Founding Fathers will probably be emphasized. It'll take a lot of time, but I'm sure it'll happen.
That doesn't necessarily mean that his role will be diminished. All of those guys did very good things for this country, but none wrote the declaration of Independence. Also: Why do we assume there is going to be a movement to degrade the Southern Founding Fathers because of the Civil War. Any reconciliationist movement, which there eventually will be, will want to emphasise them. Now, if were talking about the Present Day, than yeah I can see it, If historiography develops the same way (which is no gurantee, given how much of it depends on the circumstances of OTL), I can maybe see it.
I don't think there will be an explicit movement like Lincoln dissing Jefferson or something. But the founding myth that will be emphasized in regards to the US and slavery, even more than in OTL, will be that the Founders wanted and intended slavery to end, fully believed it would end soon, and compromised with the Slave Power only because it was absolutely necessary. Such a narrative paints Jefferson at best as naive for believing that, at worst as a hypocrite. People will probably still generally like him, but saying "the Founding Fathers were totally against slavery" is harder when some of them were slavers. Washington is a special case, nothing is tarnishing the Father of the country, but Jefferson's chief achievement, writing the Declaration of Independence, only highlights his hypocrisy. Add in a greater belief in a powerful National State and how the Federalists were closer to the Republicans in sensibilities and opinions, and Jefferson will probably lose importance compared with other Founding Fathers. Still an enormously important guy, but less sacred liberty fighter, more controversial man full of contradictions.
