Ben Butler elected Vice President
- Thread starter Johnrankins
- Start date
PLANTERS would be up screwed but Blacks, Unionists and Poor Whites would be better off.
How much longer?
As previously observed , within less than a decade of Appomattox, the US Army is down to little more than its prewar level. That is something that can't be altered just by changing Presidents - and the South contains close to a million Confederate veterans, few of whom have much time for negro rights. Add to that the fact that the ex-Rebs have clearly reconciled themselves to the restored Union, so that there's no particular need to keep them out of power [1] and the house of cards comes tumbling down.
[1]By 1880 virtually every Committee of Congress was chaired by a Rebel Brigadier - a fact which caused some indignation among Northern voters, and helped elect Garfield, yet made no noticeable difference to how the US was being run.
Depends on what Butler does. One idea I have is to have the various military governments impose a highly progressive property tax. Something like this 0-40 acres no tax. 41-80 acres 2%, 81-120 4%, 121-160 8% 161+ 16% and you exempt all Union Veterans. The majority of planters wouldn't be able to pay the tax and you seize those lands. You then distribute the land among Union Military Veterans with White Veterans getting twice the land as Black ones so it would be acceptable to White Northern voters. What you wind up with is a lot of land being distributed to Unionists and considerable amount to Black ones.
usertron2020
Donor
Who was the general in the chain of command between Wirtz and Seddon? For some reason, the name "Johnson" comes to mind, though I admit that doesn't really narrow things down. I vaguely remember a TV movie starring Richard Basehart as Wirtz, and his having a commanding officer (off screen) who backed his actions as well as Seddon's regarding the policy of deliberate cruelty and starvation towards Union prisoners. (1) Its been decades since I saw that film (which included in the cast Alan Hale-The Skipper of Gilligan's Island, and a very young Union officer played by Martin Sheen). The suggestion in the film IIRC was that Wirtz's CO was dead.
1) Yes, times were hard for Southern prisoners in Union PoW camps as well, but that was more the combined results of incompetence and retaliation for what was happening down south. (2) You didn't see the spectacle of someone like Wirtz deliberately driving away Southern farmers who had come to Andersonville following a bumper harvest in 1864 to deliver food to the Yankee PoWs. The civilians were quite properly terrified of the potential consequences to them, their homes, and families had Sherman turned into SW Georgia, or had Canby taken Mobile sooner and invaded from Southern Alabama.
2) If I'm wrong, and the North had PoW commanders as cruel as those of Andersonville and Fort Libby, please sing out.
Yeah, and his excuse was that he was "Just following orders." Sounds familiar doesn't it?
Does full suffrage come with full second amendment rights? Maybe freemen will be the ones running state-sanctioned defense militias.
usertron2020
Donor
They did. Or rather, they tried. But the Whites, outside of South Carolina, still had numerical superiority on the ground. And it was easier, especially for potential leadership types, to go North instead.
usertron2020
Donor
To us, yes. But Nuremburg was still 80 years away during his trial. The thing is, if Wirtz hadn't been such a personal bastard himself, he could probably have beaten the wrap. But between Andersonville being the worst camp, and his deliberate policies of exacerbating the camp's conditions, he earned every one of those thirteen steps.
(1) Its not like the Union hunted down and killed every last Confederate PoW camp commander in the South.1) If NOTHING else, it would have cost the South no resources whatsoever to allow fresh water to be provided to the prisoners at Andersonville. It was lack of safe drinking water that was the true killer, though starvation certainly made things worse.
To us, yes. But Nuremburg was still 80 years away during his trial. The thing is, if Wirtz hadn't been such a personal bastard himself, he could probably have beaten the wrap. But between Andersonville being the worst camp, and his deliberate policies of exacerbating the camp's conditions, he earned every one of those thirteen steps.
1) If NOTHING else, it would have cost the South no resources whatsoever to allow fresh water to be provided to the prisoners at Andersonville. It was lack of safe drinking water that was the true killer, though starvation certainly made things worse.
I realize that but it seems to be one thing Nazi and Confederate Camps had in common. Their commanders had the same excuse.
And how is he to get anything like that through Congress?
Even a proposal to disfranchise Confederates till 1870 was too much for them. It got through the House, iirc, but the Senate (despite being nearly four to one Republican) wouldn't buy it. So how on earth do you sell wholesale property confiscation?
Incidentally, there were in any case huge amounts of land on the market in the post-Bellum South - mostly due to tax defaults and the like. But the State governments concerned - whatever their political character - needed the money so they had to auction it for whatever it would fetch. So it went to those who had the ready.
BTW, do you envisage Butler seeking an elected term in 1868? If so, he will be facing an uphill fight against Grant, and will need to keep firmly in the mainstream of the Party,- going in for controversial stuff like confiscation (let alone executions) will kill his chances stone dead. Should he take that course (which I doubt - having Radical sympathies doesn't make him stupid) it will be a case of squeezing as much as possible into a single term, and hoping that not too much of it gets reversed under Grant.
.
Confiscation of property is easy for a President, simply make it a condition of not being prosecuted for treason
It doesn't have to go through Congress. The South was under military control and as Commander in Chief he would give the order. As far as selling it? Union Veterans would be the ones benefiting from it and they were a very important voting block . It would be a twofer for the Republicans. Many veterans would be even more sure to vote Republican because of the cheap or free land and they would have to move down south to get it. The Republicans could well pick up a few seats in the House of Representatives as a result.
And that would stand up in court? On the face of things, it sounds like a palpable evasion of the Constitutional ban on forfeiture "except during the life of the person attainted"
In any case, what one President does, another can undo. President Grant (who iirc never endorsed confiscation) will be perfectly at liberty to change the conditional pardon into an unconditional one, and restore the land to its owners. So the confiscation would be very temporary, ending probably soon after March 1869.
But in any case what is the point? As already noted, there was plenty of land already on the market if Congress, or a Radical State government, wanted to use it in that way. Neither did so OTL, and there's no reason why they should act differently TTL just to please a temporary accidental President.
Butler does not need permission from Congress or anyone else. The South at this time is under military rule which HE would control. As far as Grant is concerned he very well may not run in 1868 if Butler does a good job as president. There would be no reason for Republicans to try and persuade Grant to run if Butler is likely to win re-election. If he screws it up that is another matter.
What would constitute "doing a good job"? Wholesale property confiscations would be hugely controversial [1], and likely to attract wide criticism even among Republicans. Note that a heavily Republican Congress didn't even agree to give Blacks the vote until two years of provocation from Andrew Johnson (which won't have happened TTL) finally pushed them into it. Its "radicalism" is much overstated.
Also, even if the US could obtain clear title to the land [2], does a POTUS have the power to just sell off government property at his own discretion?
Finally, how likely is it that Butler would have been pursuing such a policy? OTL, according to Nash [3] as late as Sep 1865 he expressed support for Johnson's policies "as far as he understood them". He did advocate measures to prohibit compensation to slaveowners, for the disfranchisement of leading Confederates, and to prevent the South receiving additional representation in Congress in respect of voteless Blacks, but all in all, that sounds little different from the second, third and fourth sections of OTL's Fourteenth Amendment. Butler was given to colourful language, but would he in action have been that much more radical than Republicans in general?
[1] Especially if the owners were former CSA Officers who were protected from molestation by the terms of their surrenders. Grant, iirc, made it clear that he would resign if Lee or anyone covered by the terms he had granted at Appomattox, were to be arrested or prosecuted. Sherman would likely take the same attitude.
[2] The Freedmen's Bureau Act contemplated the settlement of Freedmen on lands which had been abandoned by their owners, but it carefully promised only "such title as the United States can convey". Clearly the gentlemen were highly doubtful as to the constitutionality of the whole business, even with an Act of Congress, let alone without one. No doubt the Supreme Court would (to put it mildly) have shared these misgivings.
[3] Howard P Nash Stormy Petrel, Ch 17.
Also, even if the US could obtain clear title to the land [2], does a POTUS have the power to just sell off government property at his own discretion?
Finally, how likely is it that Butler would have been pursuing such a policy? OTL, according to Nash [3] as late as Sep 1865 he expressed support for Johnson's policies "as far as he understood them". He did advocate measures to prohibit compensation to slaveowners, for the disfranchisement of leading Confederates, and to prevent the South receiving additional representation in Congress in respect of voteless Blacks, but all in all, that sounds little different from the second, third and fourth sections of OTL's Fourteenth Amendment. Butler was given to colourful language, but would he in action have been that much more radical than Republicans in general?
[1] Especially if the owners were former CSA Officers who were protected from molestation by the terms of their surrenders. Grant, iirc, made it clear that he would resign if Lee or anyone covered by the terms he had granted at Appomattox, were to be arrested or prosecuted. Sherman would likely take the same attitude.
[2] The Freedmen's Bureau Act contemplated the settlement of Freedmen on lands which had been abandoned by their owners, but it carefully promised only "such title as the United States can convey". Clearly the gentlemen were highly doubtful as to the constitutionality of the whole business, even with an Act of Congress, let alone without one. No doubt the Supreme Court would (to put it mildly) have shared these misgivings.
[3] Howard P Nash Stormy Petrel, Ch 17.
The government wouldn't be just seizing them, it would be putting a high tax on them and only seizing it if they can't pay. If they come up with the cash buy selling something they keep the land.
CSA Army officers wouldn't be prosecuted or arrested, they would merely have to pay a high tax if they had a lot of land. Davis and Seddon weren't CSA military officials so weren't covered by Grant's deal and he didn't resign over Wirtz OTL.
I don't think congress would squawk too much, it would get them votes from Union Veterans. Remember it would be Union soldiers who would get the land and they voted.