WI: Post ACW the slave holders don't get to keep their land?
- Thread starter Aranfan
- Start date
In OTL the Southern establishment and groups like the Klan were able to intimidate former slaves who were economically incredibly vulnerable.
If they had land and were not dependent on their former owners I think it would be much more possible to maintain civil rights.
There would be no 'redeaming'.
Mississipi and South Carolina which had black majoritries would certainly have very different politics. Actually other states might have as well,
If they had land and were not dependent on their former owners I think it would be much more possible to maintain civil rights.
There would be no 'redeaming'.
Mississipi and South Carolina which had black majoritries would certainly have very different politics. Actually other states might have as well,
The Sandman
Banned
What would be more interesting would be forced land reform distributing parcels from the erstwhile plantations to poor whites as well as poor blacks.
Aside from giving southern Unionists (IIRC mostly poor whites) something for their loyalty, it would drive a nice solid wedge between the interests of the southern aristocrats who started the war and the southern farmers who had to fight in it. And it finishes the job of crippling the political power of the planters by destroying their remaining economic base.
Aside from giving southern Unionists (IIRC mostly poor whites) something for their loyalty, it would drive a nice solid wedge between the interests of the southern aristocrats who started the war and the southern farmers who had to fight in it. And it finishes the job of crippling the political power of the planters by destroying their remaining economic base.
would this have a large affect on the production of cotton and tobacco? One would think that these thousands of small farmers would grow basic food crops first, and luxuries second. Less cotton and tobacco available for export overseas would have a profound affect on Europe's textile industries... maybe they'd turn to more production in their colonies?
Thande
Donor
That was already happening as a result of the ACW and the blockade. Cotton production in India was being ramped up for instance. That would presumably continue, possibly with consequences for social tensions in the Raj.
In another thread about this, someone said the constitution forbids "attainting" someone and this would lead to the slaveowners' heirs eventually getting the land.
I'm not familiar with that part of the constitution, but I'm not aware of the heirs of anyone who had to forfeit property due to commission of a crime making a claim.
I'm not familiar with that part of the constitution, but I'm not aware of the heirs of anyone who had to forfeit property due to commission of a crime making a claim.
Section 3 - Treason Note
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
What that means, a lawyer could probably dispute.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
What that means, a lawyer could probably dispute.
Paying taxes to governments that provided armies to shoot and United States armed forces were clearly assisting war against the United States. If put to jurors excluding those who had been associated with the rebellion (many of whom would not be white) they would have likely convicted such folk.
The deal would be you will not be prosecected provided you give up your land and probably stay out of your state for the following 20 years.
The deal would be you will not be prosecected provided you give up your land and probably stay out of your state for the following 20 years.
Not really.
"Attainder" was a well understood legal term. It basically meant passing legislation to declare someone guilty of treason, without giving him an individual trial. More broadly, it could mean any law passed to penalise an individual.
So the Constitution didn't actually forbid confiscation, but such a penalty could only be handed down by a Court, following the conviction of the individual concerned. It could not be imposed "across the board" by Act of Congress. After the 14th Amendment extended the privileges and immunities of the Constitution to individual states, it presumably also became impossible for a State Legislature to do this, though iirc most State Constitutions already contained provisions similar to those of the CONUS, so the point is moot.
"Corruption of blood" simply means any penalty imposed on the descendants of an attainted person, eg forbidding them to inherit from or through him.
Of course, the whole matter is academic, since the political will to do anything of this sort never existed and could not have been made to exist.
Yes, this is the sort of "settlement" of the Civil War I think of as being in proportion to the crime of secession, and also as laying the foundation of a more hopeful future.
I also rarely see it in any AH alt timelines!
One question that comes up is, who will champion such a solution of the problems the South presented? Lincoln was concerned to normalize relations with Southern states as soon as he could; he surely was not interested in ripping up the whole social basis of the Southern ruling classes (though I think he logically should have been). Andrew Johnson would not be on board with it either.
The best scenario would be to somehow persuade Lincoln this was would be the only way to go, and either butterfly away his assassination or establish the policy so firmly and broadly that his successor has to agree to continue it.
I'm afraid I have no idea how to persuade him in advance of Union victories that systematically confiscating the land of all rich secessionists and immediately granting the land proportionately to the former slaves should be standard policy.
I'm a little surprised it wasn't though; not only were the secessionists traitors, the slaves were clearly the people who had done the work of clearing the land and building up the plantation! The argument would be that we not only get rid of traitors, we build up a cadre of supporters (the freedmen) who, in owning their land, have both a stake and means of defending it and their civil rights generally--by immediately removing the old planter class (except those not guilty of secession) and immediately creating new voting citizens (the freedmen)--Lincoln's favored plan of reaccrediting state governments with minimal reform should have been more workable. Provided that these freedmen get to vote for the new state governments and their former masters don't (and for that matter for freedmen to meet voting qualifications, lots of white men who didn't before ought to now qualify, thus the whole basis is more populist) we could expect the new state governments to be both progressive and strongly loyal to the Union.
Nevertheless, though it seems like what he obviously should have been doing, Lincoln did no such thing and a good ATL needs to address why.
I also rarely see it in any AH alt timelines!
One question that comes up is, who will champion such a solution of the problems the South presented? Lincoln was concerned to normalize relations with Southern states as soon as he could; he surely was not interested in ripping up the whole social basis of the Southern ruling classes (though I think he logically should have been). Andrew Johnson would not be on board with it either.
The best scenario would be to somehow persuade Lincoln this was would be the only way to go, and either butterfly away his assassination or establish the policy so firmly and broadly that his successor has to agree to continue it.
I'm afraid I have no idea how to persuade him in advance of Union victories that systematically confiscating the land of all rich secessionists and immediately granting the land proportionately to the former slaves should be standard policy.
I'm a little surprised it wasn't though; not only were the secessionists traitors, the slaves were clearly the people who had done the work of clearing the land and building up the plantation! The argument would be that we not only get rid of traitors, we build up a cadre of supporters (the freedmen) who, in owning their land, have both a stake and means of defending it and their civil rights generally--by immediately removing the old planter class (except those not guilty of secession) and immediately creating new voting citizens (the freedmen)--Lincoln's favored plan of reaccrediting state governments with minimal reform should have been more workable. Provided that these freedmen get to vote for the new state governments and their former masters don't (and for that matter for freedmen to meet voting qualifications, lots of white men who didn't before ought to now qualify, thus the whole basis is more populist) we could expect the new state governments to be both progressive and strongly loyal to the Union.
Nevertheless, though it seems like what he obviously should have been doing, Lincoln did no such thing and a good ATL needs to address why.
I'd be curious to know what the antebellum distribution of land and slave ownership was.
As I recall, while slave ownership was widespread most slave holders had very few slaves and worked relatively small plots of land while a majority of the land and slaves were held by a small number of planters. If this is the case, redistributing the land from only the largest plantations among freedmen and landless poor whites would not only make them fervent clients of the Republican party, it would strengthen the former middle-class farmers, those who had owned only a dozen or so slaves and whose land would not be subject to confiscation would now be at the top of the social hierarchy.
As I recall, while slave ownership was widespread most slave holders had very few slaves and worked relatively small plots of land while a majority of the land and slaves were held by a small number of planters. If this is the case, redistributing the land from only the largest plantations among freedmen and landless poor whites would not only make them fervent clients of the Republican party, it would strengthen the former middle-class farmers, those who had owned only a dozen or so slaves and whose land would not be subject to confiscation would now be at the top of the social hierarchy.
Because reconciling the Southern Whites was more important than helping the Freedmen.
The priority was to make the white South once more a loyal part of the Union, and the best way to do that was "Let 'em up easy". If this could be combined with a new deal for the former slaves, so much the better - but that would be a bonus, not a necessity.Once it became clear that the South had reaccepted the Union, and that the only remaining obstacle to full reconciliation was northern interference in Southern race relations, that interference very quickly stopped.
But wouldn't that make this whole provision be duplicative with Art. 1 Sect. 9, "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed"? Sayeth USConstitution.net, "attainder n. The loss of all civil rights by a person sentenced for a serious crime."
Not to mention northern Brazil, and I believe Egypt as well. At least in the case of Brazil, its cotton boom ended shortly after the Civil war's conclusion.
The statistics I have seen say only 10% of Southerners owned slaves and only 1% owned more than 10 slaves.
Also, I do not want to burst anyone's bubble, but the majority of the United States, including Lincoln were ambivalent at best about slavery. President Lincoln himself stated that all he cared about was preserving the Union and if he could do it by not freeing any slaves then he would do it that way, if he could do it by freeing some slaves then he would do it that way and if he could do it by freeing all the slaves then he would go that route. The ending of slavery was the greatest and most noble consequence of the war, but it was not the primary reason for it. Even the Emancipation Proclamation was more political than idealogical, it ensured that Great Britain would stay out of the war.
Eurofed
Banned
It is understood that there were significant constitutional obstacles to across-the-board summary legislative confiscation of land from the plantation aristocracy. OTOH, as far as I can see, this could be done by proper use of the taxation power. Write a legislation that taxes plantation owners that supported the rebellion within an inch of their lives, while providing suitable extemptions for loyal supporters of the Union, poor whites, and freedmen.
Lincoln always believed that slavery was wrong. He believed that in normal circumstances the Federal government could not interfere. When he announced the Emancipation Proclamation its legal basis was as a war measure (one which worked very well in those terms as it happened) which had the incidedental effect of ending an evil institution.
The Federal goverment could legally have tried and executed everyone who had done anything to help the war on the United States, that woudl have been crazy.
Destoying the ruling class which had promoted both slavery and treason by taking their property would have been legal, and arguably a mild response
The Federal goverment could legally have tried and executed everyone who had done anything to help the war on the United States, that woudl have been crazy.
Destoying the ruling class which had promoted both slavery and treason by taking their property would have been legal, and arguably a mild response
Thanos6
Banned
That's what they should have done; at the very least, they should have done it to anyone who as A.) A Confederate office-holder, and B.) anyone of the Confederate military of officer rank.