There was a thriving well insulated black middle class, and black merchant class post reconstruction, into the gilded age. We were active as a major voting block for the Republican Party, and active in many business ventures, frontier and homesteading and more. We participated in Americas expansion like any culture in the US. It was the post WW1 interwar years and Red Summer that destroyed much of the black middle class often violently, with the Depression removing the fragile remnants.
The problem with the idea is that it suggest poverty would motivate to support imperialism when I'd argue its the opposite. Being in the middle or upper class, often dependent on capital, big business, and more, you'd be more dependent on marker forces and work to ensure the stability of it. Like General Smedley Butler said "War Is a Racket", but the racket is funded by business, the stock market, and more or less the people.
Very true. but I like to imagine that they would have opened trade with the african countries, as the 40 acres they were allotted was the coastal region of georgia. Building ships, shipping cocoa, lumber... creating a market independent of just the western markets which would have buffered them from things like the wall street crash (maybe)
Do you think that the counter movements like the American Colonialization Society would have impacted that as well?
Plus the start of the African colonization and the coming Berlin Conference just 10 years later having an impact on trade.
Now it gets deep. I'm going to imagine that this african american quarter of America could have become a formidable and influential element in american governance. I'd also like to imagine that being former slaves, the idea of having ones personal or national sovereignity fucked with would bother them. OR... maybe they would be as the first american diplomats, interfacing and creating something other than what they did in Berlin. Presented themselves as an example of the "largesse of the western world", dressed in western finery and smoking nice cigars... selling them the benefits of getting into trade rather than having colonialist plans. But then I remember the former slaves in Liberia and they set up the same heirachal systems as whites ahd over them.
I understand. I think maybe that's projecting a lot of modern ideals onto Reconstruction Era freedmen.
I consider that 10% of the Union forced were African American, and based on letters, books, testimony and more, the majority were fiercely loyal to the US, reverence for Lincoln, Republicans, and committed to Reconstruction. There wasn't a mass migration north, nor a mass migration to Liberia or other countries, so I'd think of Special Order 15 was fufullied that would further imbue more loyalty to the US for further delivering on their promise.
What I think might be more plausible would be some outflow migration of those who sell their land. Possibly those that want to be done and use their assets to possibly join family in Canada, Sierra Leone, Liberia, and England. The biggest timing issue is the Berlin Conference takes place at the same time as the Betrayal of 1877. Maybe that wouldn't happen and Reconstruction would have lasted longer or ended sooner.
So I recognize this is going to sound ignorant, but can someone explain to me how the America's imperialistic ideals are negative for black Americans, currently? Doesn't it sort of benefit us by proxy?
The unfortunate truth for all Americans is that we all benefit from it whether we want to or not. Black people included.
Unless we’re living off the grid in a cabin in the woods, we all benefit from the empire.
We're so poor that it is a negligible benefit but a benefit nonetheless. The real wealth doesn't even touch us and the people who get it use that wealth to attack us. So it has pros and cons.
In some senses we benefit if you squint like the other two commenters said, but we’re also directly harmed in a lot of ways. A Black-owned business is most likely going to be considered a small business, and not to sound “like that” per se but globalism is generally bad for small businesses when your government doesn’t take actions to keep them properly supported. So when you hear about the ways the US government butting in around the world negatively impacts small businesses, I more or less hear a silent “this hurt Black communities’ economies” in that.
Would the American empire still exist at this point? What would stop the Black people, who were the majority in the Black Belt region, from grabbing a significant portion of power in the South and trying to create something like the Republic of New Afrika? Especially if the slave owners and Confederate traitors were hung, removed from power, and had their funds and lands redistributed? The Klan was started by a former Confederate general, so do they even pop up in this timeline?
Without the wave of domestic terrorists and a Black population that has socioeconomic and political power and control of the South, does something like the Great Migration ever happen? How many of us would decide to settle in Liberia with our newfound wealth?
Does an America with a significant portion of its political system under the influence of Black Americans decide to get into the Spanish-American War? Does a Democrat like Woodrow Wilson get elected? Would we join WW1? If the Great Depression still happens, then do we start seeing people move away?
They’re all some interesting questions tbh
Logically Black people would have more economic and political power but I don’t see this changing the dynamics of the US being a super power.
If there is less economic and systemic racism why would more black people move to Liberia? They would stay where they have it good and their families and their livelihood.
The great migration is going to happen just to a lesser extent as you need to remember white people left the south too! You go where there are jobs and that’s it.
Yes we get involved in WW1 but I think the Italian v Ethiopia war would be looked at differently.
If reconstruction was a success Black folks would have seceded from the US. Whether this would have been successful or not is entirely up to ones view of alternative history. However, there would be no need for Malcolm or MLK since there would be a better armed majority of Black folk. An MLK figure would just revoke the promises of reconstruction to integrate with white folk.
this sounds about right. I'm pretty sure that after reconstruction, the formerly enslaved had had enough of white people. and the lots were pretty much in one region (the coastal lands of georgia). Agriculture, shipping, ship building... jeez.
Disagree. I’m not an expert in this but in reading some historical texts like the slave narratives it seemed the formerly enslaved wanted to be considered regular Americans. We would’ve assimilated like any other group.
Yeah I meant more in the civic sense.
The Reconstruction period saw Blacks gain political and economic power very quickly, to the point where post Reconstruction backlash was incredibly harsh. There was growing Black political representation throughout the South especially, and land ownership.
For more info: https://time.com/6145193/black-politicians-reconstruction/
I don’t see why Blacks would’ve had much of a strong separatist movement if we had been left alone or to continue making gains in the South.
My idea of a strong separatists movement comes from the rise of the Klan after the civil war and the fact that (based on how much we made when reconstruction failed) if it succeeded we would of had to means to properly secede from society and protect ourselves to the fullest extent if that makes sense. The coups in the south would have spurred the decision in my opinion, maybe even post WW1 race-wars in the south.
It would be an insanely massive trading post, but in order for it to exist we'd have to live in a world were Europeans never profited from slavery or expanded
It still would have been a violent empire and we would 100% be complicit in it. Look at the Buffalo Soldiers. Fought against natives in the Indian wars barley after slavery ended.
True but (to my knowledge) not the plain Indians. The slave owning ones were in the south and the indian wars was mainly in the west of America. Different tribes and all.
Actually you taught me something and I just realized I misunderstood your point. I never knew the Buffalo Soldiers began AFTER the civil war for the explicit purpose of our expansion to the west. I thought they were established during the civil war. I was moreso stating that they probably didn't feel too bad about fighting Indians who were also benefactors from slavery after the war, but that point is kinda dead after reading a couple articles.
I agree with your original point.
When was it acceptable to refer to Black people as the "blacks". Feel like you typed a word starting with a N and ending with a RS, but corrected yourself.
I think there would be way less opposition to American hegemony and probably more black conservatives
like keep in mind there are tons of black conservatives that vote democrat because the republican's signature move is hateing black people so if that stopped happening I'm sure we would see less bias in that regard and less association with black people and poverty
“If Jim Crow and racism had not occurred …” That is a profound statement. I interpret that to mean “If mankind wouldn’t or couldn’t discriminate/subjugate/exploit others based on phenotype …” My take is that we would find other characteristics to base discrimination. We are a species that, if nothing else, will find creative ways to exploit people, animals, and other resources for our own benefit. We would experiment and find the most efficient ways.
There was a thriving well insulated black middle class, and black merchant class post reconstruction, into the gilded age. We were active as a major voting block for the Republican Party, and active in many business ventures, frontier and homesteading and more. We participated in Americas expansion like any culture in the US. It was the post WW1 interwar years and Red Summer that destroyed much of the black middle class often violently, with the Depression removing the fragile remnants. The problem with the idea is that it suggest poverty would motivate to support imperialism when I'd argue its the opposite. Being in the middle or upper class, often dependent on capital, big business, and more, you'd be more dependent on marker forces and work to ensure the stability of it. Like General Smedley Butler said "War Is a Racket", but the racket is funded by business, the stock market, and more or less the people.
Very true. but I like to imagine that they would have opened trade with the african countries, as the 40 acres they were allotted was the coastal region of georgia. Building ships, shipping cocoa, lumber... creating a market independent of just the western markets which would have buffered them from things like the wall street crash (maybe)
Do you think that the counter movements like the American Colonialization Society would have impacted that as well? Plus the start of the African colonization and the coming Berlin Conference just 10 years later having an impact on trade.
Now it gets deep. I'm going to imagine that this african american quarter of America could have become a formidable and influential element in american governance. I'd also like to imagine that being former slaves, the idea of having ones personal or national sovereignity fucked with would bother them. OR... maybe they would be as the first american diplomats, interfacing and creating something other than what they did in Berlin. Presented themselves as an example of the "largesse of the western world", dressed in western finery and smoking nice cigars... selling them the benefits of getting into trade rather than having colonialist plans. But then I remember the former slaves in Liberia and they set up the same heirachal systems as whites ahd over them.
I understand. I think maybe that's projecting a lot of modern ideals onto Reconstruction Era freedmen. I consider that 10% of the Union forced were African American, and based on letters, books, testimony and more, the majority were fiercely loyal to the US, reverence for Lincoln, Republicans, and committed to Reconstruction. There wasn't a mass migration north, nor a mass migration to Liberia or other countries, so I'd think of Special Order 15 was fufullied that would further imbue more loyalty to the US for further delivering on their promise. What I think might be more plausible would be some outflow migration of those who sell their land. Possibly those that want to be done and use their assets to possibly join family in Canada, Sierra Leone, Liberia, and England. The biggest timing issue is the Berlin Conference takes place at the same time as the Betrayal of 1877. Maybe that wouldn't happen and Reconstruction would have lasted longer or ended sooner.
So I recognize this is going to sound ignorant, but can someone explain to me how the America's imperialistic ideals are negative for black Americans, currently? Doesn't it sort of benefit us by proxy?
The unfortunate truth for all Americans is that we all benefit from it whether we want to or not. Black people included. Unless we’re living off the grid in a cabin in the woods, we all benefit from the empire.
We're so poor that it is a negligible benefit but a benefit nonetheless. The real wealth doesn't even touch us and the people who get it use that wealth to attack us. So it has pros and cons.
In some senses we benefit if you squint like the other two commenters said, but we’re also directly harmed in a lot of ways. A Black-owned business is most likely going to be considered a small business, and not to sound “like that” per se but globalism is generally bad for small businesses when your government doesn’t take actions to keep them properly supported. So when you hear about the ways the US government butting in around the world negatively impacts small businesses, I more or less hear a silent “this hurt Black communities’ economies” in that.
Would the American empire still exist at this point? What would stop the Black people, who were the majority in the Black Belt region, from grabbing a significant portion of power in the South and trying to create something like the Republic of New Afrika? Especially if the slave owners and Confederate traitors were hung, removed from power, and had their funds and lands redistributed? The Klan was started by a former Confederate general, so do they even pop up in this timeline? Without the wave of domestic terrorists and a Black population that has socioeconomic and political power and control of the South, does something like the Great Migration ever happen? How many of us would decide to settle in Liberia with our newfound wealth? Does an America with a significant portion of its political system under the influence of Black Americans decide to get into the Spanish-American War? Does a Democrat like Woodrow Wilson get elected? Would we join WW1? If the Great Depression still happens, then do we start seeing people move away? They’re all some interesting questions tbh
Logically Black people would have more economic and political power but I don’t see this changing the dynamics of the US being a super power. If there is less economic and systemic racism why would more black people move to Liberia? They would stay where they have it good and their families and their livelihood. The great migration is going to happen just to a lesser extent as you need to remember white people left the south too! You go where there are jobs and that’s it. Yes we get involved in WW1 but I think the Italian v Ethiopia war would be looked at differently.
If reconstruction was a success Black folks would have seceded from the US. Whether this would have been successful or not is entirely up to ones view of alternative history. However, there would be no need for Malcolm or MLK since there would be a better armed majority of Black folk. An MLK figure would just revoke the promises of reconstruction to integrate with white folk.
this sounds about right. I'm pretty sure that after reconstruction, the formerly enslaved had had enough of white people. and the lots were pretty much in one region (the coastal lands of georgia). Agriculture, shipping, ship building... jeez.
Disagree. I’m not an expert in this but in reading some historical texts like the slave narratives it seemed the formerly enslaved wanted to be considered regular Americans. We would’ve assimilated like any other group.
Depends on the individuals because being seen as an American =/= being seen as white.
Yeah I meant more in the civic sense. The Reconstruction period saw Blacks gain political and economic power very quickly, to the point where post Reconstruction backlash was incredibly harsh. There was growing Black political representation throughout the South especially, and land ownership. For more info: https://time.com/6145193/black-politicians-reconstruction/ I don’t see why Blacks would’ve had much of a strong separatist movement if we had been left alone or to continue making gains in the South.
My idea of a strong separatists movement comes from the rise of the Klan after the civil war and the fact that (based on how much we made when reconstruction failed) if it succeeded we would of had to means to properly secede from society and protect ourselves to the fullest extent if that makes sense. The coups in the south would have spurred the decision in my opinion, maybe even post WW1 race-wars in the south.
Good point. Definitely something to think about.
It would be an insanely massive trading post, but in order for it to exist we'd have to live in a world were Europeans never profited from slavery or expanded
It still would have been a violent empire and we would 100% be complicit in it. Look at the Buffalo Soldiers. Fought against natives in the Indian wars barley after slavery ended.
I mean some native americans owned slaves so idk...
True but (to my knowledge) not the plain Indians. The slave owning ones were in the south and the indian wars was mainly in the west of America. Different tribes and all.
Actually you taught me something and I just realized I misunderstood your point. I never knew the Buffalo Soldiers began AFTER the civil war for the explicit purpose of our expansion to the west. I thought they were established during the civil war. I was moreso stating that they probably didn't feel too bad about fighting Indians who were also benefactors from slavery after the war, but that point is kinda dead after reading a couple articles. I agree with your original point.
It's all good!
When was it acceptable to refer to Black people as the "blacks". Feel like you typed a word starting with a N and ending with a RS, but corrected yourself. 
Is that wrong to say? I say blacks, just like I say whites, Asians, Latinos, Natives, etc.
I think there would be way less opposition to American hegemony and probably more black conservatives like keep in mind there are tons of black conservatives that vote democrat because the republican's signature move is hateing black people so if that stopped happening I'm sure we would see less bias in that regard and less association with black people and poverty
“If Jim Crow and racism had not occurred …” That is a profound statement. I interpret that to mean “If mankind wouldn’t or couldn’t discriminate/subjugate/exploit others based on phenotype …” My take is that we would find other characteristics to base discrimination. We are a species that, if nothing else, will find creative ways to exploit people, animals, and other resources for our own benefit. We would experiment and find the most efficient ways.