How would you have handled Reconstruction?

Great Debates
1

I would say the entire political leadership of the Confederacy should’ve swung from the gallows. All of those who instigated secession, and all of those who had made the decisions to fire upon Fort Sumpter thus starting the war - hung.

The Generals and military leadershp would have been reviewed on a case by case basis. Those who fought out of love of state, rather than hate of the Union or love of slavery, could be re-habilitated back into society after a time and could act as guiding forces to help heal the anger of the broken South. They could re-earn their citizenship and their honor by helping heal the country.

Those who fought with the aim of keeping slavery alive forever - hung.

The grunt soldiers were boys fighting to defend their homeland in most cases. Their homeland already suffered enough with Sherman’s marches. I would grant a conditional amnesty to the boys who fought - any boy under age 35 or so. They would have to renounce, in the eyes of God and before the law, the Confederacy, Slavery, and would have to swear an oath to the United States and to work in congress with the North to re-establish stability.

If they renounced the Confederacy, Slavery, and swore an oath to the Union, they would be re-admitted as citizens, with no ill-will or malice. In the cases of boys who had been Union troops prior to the War, they could be reactivated as Union troops with their original pre-war rank and all benefits thereof. That is only IF they accepted the oath and renunciation clause.

Any who refused to denounce the Confederacy, or denounce slavery, or refuse an oath of allegiance would be imprisoned and sentenced to terms of hard labor.

The South would remain a Federally occupied zone with no true rights until the last soldier who fought for the Confederacy died. The government of the South would be regional governors appointed by the North who would institute equal rights. Only after all remaining Confederate soldiers had died of old age would the process of re-admitting the South into the Union.

Re-admisssion to the Union would require, first of all, a review of the conduct of each state on a case-by-case basis over the course of occupation.

Afterwards:

  1. A vote on the part of each Southern state to rejoin the Union. If they voted “no”, they would remain a federally occupied territory.

All states who voted “yes” would proceed to Step 2:

  1. All states who voted to rejoin the Union would have to answer a referendum as to whether or not they denounce the Confederacy, slavery, and support equal rights. A state would only be re-admitted if 75% of the state affirmed by vote that they denounced the Confederacy, slavery, and supported equal rights. This referendum would be a multi-step process (similar to the process Puerto Rico is taking to attain citizenship - very clear, very concise, very clearly worded)
2

That’s crazy. That would have resulted in massive resistance.

3

I think the formerly enslaved should have gotten 40 acres and a mule.

4

We didn’t hang Lee and Davis which is why we survived a civil war. I do however recommend hanging neo-Nazis

5

I wouldn’t necessarily go as far as the OP, but there definitely would have be “de-nazification” of the South. All political leaders swing. All plantation owners swing. Anybody involved with the slave trade swings. Soldiers and the rest get the option of enlisting and heading out West to “pacify” the natives and eventually invade Mexico. Any former slaves that want “40 acres and a mule” get shipped out to the Pacific Northwest for settlement far away from the crackers down south. Any actions taken towards former slaves and their families would be met with total destruction of the white offender’s property and family. Lynch a black man and we erase your bloodline from history.

That will do for the first week. :smiley:

6

Okay, that’s just sociopathic. So if some old Confederate hurt a former slave, you’d kill the entire guy’s fucking family because of what the father did? Even the children? Come on now. Don’t troll.

7

Not trolling. Those are my people I’m talking about. I come from South Carolina stock that has been mucking about this continent since before Jamestown. Fuck all of them. Sociopathic it might be. That’s why it is wise I am never put in total control. Because My Fury would be Total and Unyielding. But it would sure put paid to that KKK shit.

8

The only people I would have wanted executed were those who carried out specific war crimes, like attacks on civilians or mistreating POW’s. Supporting secession and fighting a war, even at the highest levels, wouldn’t be something I’d execute people for. The most severe punishment I’d impose in those cases would be loss of citizenship rights like voting or holding public office and those cases would be rare.

I probably would have gone for a pretty significant program of economic and political redistribution. The southern plantation owners had been the political and economic leaders in the pre-war south. I’d hold them more responsible for the war than the people who followed them. They were also the people who benefited economically from the labor of slaves. So I’d confiscate a lot of plantation land to reduce the power and wealth of the plantation class. And then I’d redistribute the land to freed slaves so they could own farms and support themselves.

Postwar attempts to seek revenge or intimidate black people would be treated as organized criminal activity. I’d use the threat of federal administration if local governments were condoning such activity.

9

The south never underwent any kind of moral self reflection after the war. They just became bitter and resentful.

With places like Germany or Japan that fought wars for evil reasons, there was some reflection and self awareness afterwards, and the culture changed to reflect that.

I think Lincoln was wrong to treat the South as equals after they lost. They should’ve been colonized and had their voting rights taken away during reconstruction and during the cultural reformation. Giving them full voting rights immediately was a mistake. They lost the war, they were in no position to negotiate.

Now we are in a situation where even 150 years later, many white people in the south vote for whatever party lets them treat black people the worst (we can all pretend this isn’t true, but it is). When democrats let them do it, they vote for the democrats. When the GOP does it, they vote for the GOP. Imagine if in the 22nd century, 150 years after the Nazis were defeated, white Germans were still voting for whatever party let them treat Jews the worst and protesting when statues of Hitler were taken down.

10

Federally occupied, with something like a Truth and Reconciliations committee between freed slaves and those who abused them, along with an intensive new education system that emphasizes equal treatment and equal rights, for about the same amount of time that denazification took.

11

I’d have hanged Lee for treason. He violated the oath he took to defend the US and then led armies against it.

I think I’d have strengthened to guarantee voting rights to all citizens. What would all you think of making a state’s congressional representation dependent on how many people voted in the previous HR election? Or maybe the last five. You don’t want redistricting every two years. That would certainly take away their incentive to try to stop the “wrong” people from voting.

The trouble with the OP is that once a state is readmitted, there would be nothing to stop the inevitable backlash from setting. You have to have an automatic mechanism to prevent it determining public policy.

12

Those of you who want to hang everyone in the south who owned a slave. What would you do to the people in the north who started Jim Crow? What about the towns who prohibited black persons from settling there?

13

What would you have done with all the northern carpet baggers, rushing down to the south to take advantage of the situation?

For example, some of you want to break up the plantations and give the land to former slaves. You cant do that if the plantation was bought by a northerner.

I think one big issue you all are not dealing with is the fact the north was just as racist as the south.

14

How can you do that when northerners were just as racist as the southerners?

15

You cant do the latter if the plantation was bought up by a northern carpet bagger.

16

That kind of reminds me of Order #11 in Miisouri where the Union troops had the rights to take over any persons property who showed any signs of sympathy towards the Confederacy. How that was interpreted was up to whoever wanted it to.

Thing was it turned into a massive property grab where former Jayhawkers and other thieves took it as a right to just walk in and steal anything they wanted. The land didn’t go to the poor either, it went to the criminals in charge.

17

The more I think about it, the more I am in favor of the idea that by rebelling, the southern states lost their right to be states at all. Dissolve them completely, govern them for at least three generations as Federal Territories, then reconstitute them with new borders and new names. Reverse the “Trail of Tears” and give the land back to the Cherokee, Seminole and other tribes that were displaced, with a third more land tossed in as compensation.

18

The problem with gaming out various Reconstruction scenarios is that we, today, are most likely not taking into account another important reason that Reconstruction failed: White supremacy was not strictly confined to the South. Northern Republicans were obviously angry and bitter at their Southern political rivals for causing a war that unnecessarily resulted in hundreds of thousands of casualties. But after the war there were two questions:

  1. How was the North going to reintegrate Southern states that were economically devastated and emotionally just as raw as they were?

  2. How were they going to ensure that blacks had at least some equality under the law?

The second question was easier to address than the first. It was in the interest of Northern states to put the past behind them and work toward rebuilding and reintegrating the South into a larger Union, which was the main concern at the start of the war in 1861.

The second question was more complex. Clearly, Northerners knew that the South had no intention of treating freedmen as equals, but the Northerners didn’t necessarily have that expectation. What they wanted was that their basic rights would be secured. The North tried to use the Constitution against them with the post-war amendments. But beyond that, what else was the North willing to do to ensure equality for blacks? Many Northerners felt like they’d done their job and that they weren’t going to occupy the South for years on end to ensure that black people had a particular status. Consider what happened when blacks began their exodus from the South in the early 1900s and the tensions that existed in some Northern cities.

19

If I was immortal dictator, I would have done something like that in the north too. Northern racism was very bad too, even if not nearly as bad as the chattel daily-rape-and-brutality that was slavery.

What would you have done? Do you seriously think that everything that could have been done to help the freed slaves was done?

20

There have been three recent instances from you that could merit warnings. 2 of the 3 will receive warnings, and the other a note. This is one of the warnings for accusing another poster of trolling. That is not permitted outside of the Pit.

[/moderating]