Former President Trump is projected to handily win the South Carolina GOP primary, dealing a crushing blow to rival Nikki Haley, according to an exit poll conducted by Decision Desk HQ. The …
Better to get on with things, rather than settle scores.
How many problems do we face today because of this misguided notion?
Confederates weren’t punished after the US Civil War, and what did they do after that? The KKK, Jim Crow, “lost cause” myth, redlining, sundown towns, etc, happened because we didn’t beat every inch of racism out of the South. Nixon literally sabotaged an end to hostilities in Vietnam and prolonged the war just to get elected. What’s the word for someone who actively works against their government? Oliver North sold guns to Iran in order to fund right-wing revolutionaries in Nicaragua at Reagan’s direction. GW Bush lied about WMDs in Iraq to justify an invasion, and blew the cover off a CIA operative when she refused to endorse false claims of Uranium enrichment.
Confederates weren’t punished after the US Civil War, and what did they do after that?
The ideals and policies the Confederates had during and after the war were abhorrent. That is unquestionable.
However, I struggle to envision what “punishment” for the former Confederate state would have been.
“The population of the Union was 18.5 million. In the Confederacy, the population was listed as 5.5 million free and 3.5 million enslaved. In the Border States there were 2.5 million free inhabitants and 500,000 enslaved people.” source
So 25% of the newly reunited population of the USA was part of the Confederacy. How do you punish 25% of your population? Some kind of tax or restriction of freedom on them? Discrimination against blacks was the primary driver for the war. How could the Union then go on to build a new system that would do that to 25% of its citizens?
We also have history to draw from with regard to punishing an entire aggressor population. Post WWI Germany got smacked down hard with huge debts and restrictions on production as punishment for starting WWI. Most historical analysis I’ve seen says that this punishment was a large contributor to the rise of NAZI Germany just 21 years later.
If the post-civil war US government did the same to the former Confederacy, would the USA have a history including Civil War II?
Punish here isn’t meant as a short-term restriction or taking of freedoms. Punish is instead meant for the long term. While I cannot say as to what the correct option would have been, I will say we far too quickly, in reference to the passage of years from the Civil War to today, went from “FREE THEM!” to “Welp, aight, did that. Guess everything is good now.”
It wasn’t good now.
So what we failed to truly do was follow up and quash the little pockets that exist today much larger and with a damned ancient fruit as their lead.
the problem wasn’t that there was not enough government though, it was that there was too much government. without States, Jim Crow could not have n been made law. abolish the state.
Yes, because without the states to make laws that racists followed, there would have been no Jim Crow reaction to newly freed slaves. And I bet we’d also still have newly freed slaves too.
While this isn’t something I’d necessarily advocate for, the anti-treason part of the constitution could have easily seen the high command of the confederacy hanged for it.
This could have potentially worked. History afterward showed that the hanging worked at Nuremberg, and modern day Germany show no repercussions from that action.
As my Dutch grandfather often angrily said, the Dutch resistance gained most of its members in 1945.
But I think it was a useful lie at that point. Better to get on with things, rather than settle scores.
How many problems do we face today because of this misguided notion?
Confederates weren’t punished after the US Civil War, and what did they do after that? The KKK, Jim Crow, “lost cause” myth, redlining, sundown towns, etc, happened because we didn’t beat every inch of racism out of the South. Nixon literally sabotaged an end to hostilities in Vietnam and prolonged the war just to get elected. What’s the word for someone who actively works against their government? Oliver North sold guns to Iran in order to fund right-wing revolutionaries in Nicaragua at Reagan’s direction. GW Bush lied about WMDs in Iraq to justify an invasion, and blew the cover off a CIA operative when she refused to endorse false claims of Uranium enrichment.
And that’s just the ones off the top of my head.
The ideals and policies the Confederates had during and after the war were abhorrent. That is unquestionable.
However, I struggle to envision what “punishment” for the former Confederate state would have been.
“The population of the Union was 18.5 million. In the Confederacy, the population was listed as 5.5 million free and 3.5 million enslaved. In the Border States there were 2.5 million free inhabitants and 500,000 enslaved people.” source
So 25% of the newly reunited population of the USA was part of the Confederacy. How do you punish 25% of your population? Some kind of tax or restriction of freedom on them? Discrimination against blacks was the primary driver for the war. How could the Union then go on to build a new system that would do that to 25% of its citizens?
We also have history to draw from with regard to punishing an entire aggressor population. Post WWI Germany got smacked down hard with huge debts and restrictions on production as punishment for starting WWI. Most historical analysis I’ve seen says that this punishment was a large contributor to the rise of NAZI Germany just 21 years later.
If the post-civil war US government did the same to the former Confederacy, would the USA have a history including Civil War II?
Punish here isn’t meant as a short-term restriction or taking of freedoms. Punish is instead meant for the long term. While I cannot say as to what the correct option would have been, I will say we far too quickly, in reference to the passage of years from the Civil War to today, went from “FREE THEM!” to “Welp, aight, did that. Guess everything is good now.”
It wasn’t good now.
So what we failed to truly do was follow up and quash the little pockets that exist today much larger and with a damned ancient fruit as their lead.
don’t they teach reconstruction any more?
Its been a long time since I’ve been in a classroom, so I can’t say.
With your question do you believe Reconstruction was contained punishment that was insufficient to meet @[email protected] 's desired level?
I don’t know.
I don’t believe in punishment, myself. but the South was obviously punished.
Up until it was politically expedient to end the punishment and hey look the worst of Jim Crow…
the problem wasn’t that there was not enough government though, it was that there was too much government. without States, Jim Crow could not have n been made law. abolish the state.
Yes, because without the states to make laws that racists followed, there would have been no Jim Crow reaction to newly freed slaves. And I bet we’d also still have newly freed slaves too.
deleted by creator
This could have potentially worked. History afterward showed that the hanging worked at Nuremberg, and modern day Germany show no repercussions from that action.
My dude, there’s a vast difference between “justice” and “vengeance.”
I agree completely.
For the post @[email protected] 's post above, what is your suggestion about how to pushing the newly defeated Confederacy in 1865?
Out of curiosity, what city was he in for that? My great grandparents on my Oma’s side were part of the resistance in Haarlem during the war.