How would you have treated confederate leaders?

[J. J.]

I would have granted amnesty to all that pledged loyalty to the Union.

Robert E Lee would have been in charge of Reconstruction.

[J. J.]

I would have granted amnesty to all that pledged loyalty to the Union.

Robert E Lee would have been in charge of Reconstruction.

Are your reasons practical or moral. As in do you think Lee was deserved the position or do you think he should have had it because southerners would have accepted him allowing the process to run easier?

Both.  

Lee freed his (well, his wife's) slaves prior to the Civil War.  He had problems with the morality of it;  because he had to provide for his former slaves, he had some idea of the transition process.  

He was revered in the South and could have led by example.

As States pointed out, the bulk of slaveowners did interact with all their slaves on a daily basis.  The South was "segregated" in the 20th Century meaning of the term.  That would have made it much easier.  The only real problem were the isolated plantation owners.  

Lee, in effect, was part of this class and could have reached out to it.  It coud have fashionable to work toward the "advancement" of former slaves.  I wonder what the South would have looked like.

[J. J.]

had them shot for treason.

Yes and Lincoln was the first person to be executed under this rule.


Anyways, I doubt Lee would have been able to do anything in regards to reconstruction. He was in very ill health from 1864 onwards until his death in 1870. His birthday is coming up shortly as well. Jan 19th 1807.

He was able to serve as president of Washington College.

[J. J.]

"Needful" is a very relative concept. Needful for what? I think it is implied that Congress can make rules and regulations that it deems "needful" for whatever purpose.

Congress and the courts determine "needful."  The Secessionists never understood that.

[J. J.]

I disagree on the courts. I think that clause is just giving Congress the authority to make general rules and regulations that they deem needful for whatever purpose.

There is no objective way to determine what a "needful" rule is.

I never said it was objective.  The courts could interpret the Constitution to see if something was "needful."  The decision most likely to be to defer to the legislative branch, however.

[J. J.]

If the courts tried something that stupid, I'm sure the Congress would just pass a law revoking their jurisdiction over the matter.

That's part of the checks and ballances.  Also, the SCOTUS couldn't rule that something was "needful" that had not been adopted and Congress had to adopt it.  It can invalidate a statute, but it cannot create statute.

[J. J.]

The reason why Jefferson Davis never was put on trial for treason was that he would have argued, successfully, that the Constitution and the Declaration gave the states the implicit right to secede if the federal government overstepped its authority. 

Having Lincoln win an election was overstepping authority?

No. The 1860 GOP campaign plank to halt the spread of slavery into the territories was, however, very clearly unconstitutional. That Lincoln was elected president made that unconstitutional campaign promise essentially a fait-accompli.

I would have encouraged the rapid industrialization of the South. Not only would that have alleviated the massive poverty resulting from the immediate release of the slaves (by 1860 the capital of southern plantations lay in the slaves themselves, and not the land or the crop), it would have weakend the social structures that made whites think of blacks as only bonded field labor in the first place.

As for the Confederate leaders, most (but not all, e.g. Nathan B Forrest) were reasonable and should have been given their citizenship after taking the loyalty oath and a probationary period. Even Jeff Davis's ex-slaves had no problem with a monument being built in his honour after his death in 1889.

Ok, so someone saying they want to do something is cause for secession.

Wow.  Just . . . wow.

Using this logic jFRAUD is free to lead his civil war.  He doesn't like the president at the time either.  There was no overt or covert act on the part of the Federal government to free any slave, prevent the return of any escaped slave, or prohibit the buying of new slaves in any state.

Davis, ironically, was noted for caring for his slaves, to the extent of building a hospital for them.  His closest friend and the administrator of his plantation was one of his former slaves.

[J. J.]

More or less the same as they were in real life.
The two main things I would have tried to do different are:
-The US government attempted to collect back taxes for 1861-4. That was dumb and vindictive (although of course totally legal and "logical"), not to mention highly damaging to the Southern economy, which needed money pumped in, not out. Now that's an amnesty the South should have goten but didn't.
-The Freedmen should have been compensated (as was demanded by the most Radical Republicans, as well as the Freedmen themselves.) "40 Acres and a Mule" was the cry of the time, and I endorse it, also it needs some modifications (such as for the differing fertility of the country. Also, in the inland cotton country, cooperatives would likely have worked better than small individual holdings) I have no problem endorsing seizing of large plantations for the purpose.
With that program in place, the Blacks' defranchising after 1876 simply couldn't have happened, and the South's history since might have been much happier.

The infamous "40 acres and a mule" was never a promise made by the government. It was actually a newspaper article written on what to do w/the slaves after they were freed.

Ah, it was suggested by Rep. Thaddeus Stevens (R-PA) in committee, but never got out.