What if John Wilkes Booth trips

[Anarch King of Dipsodes]

Would the *immediateness* of this under Lincoln post-war make *all* that much difference than it being delayed until the onset of military/Congressional Reconstruction led governments, and then the Grant Administration and then their appointments of men aligned to the Republican Party to offices? Why so?

In 1865, the political situation was extremely fluid. By 1869, the Democrats had established themselves as leaders of the white South in opposition to Yankee occupation. There were some Republicans, but nearly all of these were wartime Unionists propped up by the occupying army. They were labeled "scalawags" and regarded as traitors.

The lines had been drawn, and it was going to be almost impossible for Republicans to muster any white support in the Deep South.

IMO, in 1865, there were many former Whigs who might have been recruited to the Republican cause, which embodied many traditional Whig ideas. But they would have to be approached right away.

 

[Beefhammer]

find (as Crump did) that it's more useful to co-opt black voters than to suppress them

In this country? Really? After generations of evidence showing that politicos hostile to Black America always choose suppress the black vote when the option is given?
lol
lmao

 

[Anarch King of Dipsodes]

In this country? Really? After generations of evidence showing that politicos hostile to Black America always choose suppress the black vote when the option is given?

Crump's use of black voters is well documented. Funeral directors Lewie Ford and his son Newton managed the black vote for him. Newton's son Harold Ford sr was US Representative from Memphis (1975-1997), succeeded by Harold jr (1997-2007). Seven other Fords have held elective office in the Memphis area.

Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley (1955-1976) might be considered "hostile to Black America"; he was certainly opposed by black activists. But he had control of the black vote in Chicago and his precinct workers were expected to turn out every one of them.

 

[jmc247]

Crump's use of black voters is well documented. Funeral directors Lewie Ford and his son Newton managed the black vote for him. Newton's son Harold Ford sr was US Representative from Memphis (1975-1997), succeeded by Harold jr (1997-2007). Seven other Fords have held elective office in the Memphis area.

Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley (1955-1976) might be considered "hostile to Black America"; he was certainly opposed by black activists. But he had control of the black vote in Chicago and his precinct workers were expected to turn out every one of them.

There are no easy ways I can see of radically changing the issue of societal fears which existed North and South and which became more acute the larger the freedmen population.

 

[Mikestone8]

He certainly seemed to want it in the South. But this would not threaten complete political and social revolution, and might therefore be acceptable to enough white Southerners to take effect. I.e. there would be no "Redeemers" violently suppressing blacks and Republicans. Basically, if there is no "Conservative Reconstruction" under Johnson, there will be no "Radical Reconstruction", and no "Redeemers". The Fourteenth Amendment may not even be necessary.

There will certainly be some kind of 14A, if only to repudiate the Confederate debt. I also suspect that Section 2, which reduced Congressional representation in proportion to how many men over 21 were disfranchised, would still be adopted. For the rest it really depends on how the South behaves. If they are as defiant as OTL, there will still be consequences.

There's a certain irony that the chief beneficiaries from Radical Reconstruction were probably the Southern Democrats, since the supersession of Section 2 by the 15A, only for the Black vote to be increasingly suppressed, enabled them to have it both ways, monopolising the South while keeping the additional Congressmen and electoral votes to which Black suffrage entitled them.

I agree that the disfranchisement of Freedmen didn't *have* to be as total as it became from the 1890s onward, but that would depend on the North not losing interest in the issue. Basically, in this area the White South will do what it thinks it can get away with.

 

[Anarch King of Dipsodes]

There will certainly be some kind of 14A, if only to repudiate the Confederate debt. I also suspect that Section 2, which reduced Congressional representation in proportion to how many men over 21 were disfranchised

Section 2 was a "Rube Goldberg" mechanism that was essentially unenforceable. How would the number of disfranchised blacks be determined? Especially if disfranchisement was partly by "informal" means? And when would the number of House seats be reduced? In the middle of a decade? If disfranchisement was observed in some election year, would the reduction apply immediately? I.e. would some of the Representatives just elected be excluded, arbitrarily denying representation to those districts?

I agree that the disfranchisement of Freedmen didn't *have* to be as total as it became from the 1890s onward, but that would depend on the North not losing interest in the issue. Basically, in this area the White South will do what it thinks it can get away with.

But as early as 1900-1910, some white Southerners found black votes useful (e.g. Boss Crump). If black voting does not threaten political overturn, then very likely it will be tolerated: initially, under pressure from Lincoln; then protected by southern Republicans; and eventually exploited by both parties. This could lead to blacks being elected to "safe" offices: recorder of deeds, or one of several seats on a school board. Once everyone gets used to that, the paranoia of OTL would be defused and further changes would follow.