Slapping Wrists for Treason

[Salus Maior]

It ceases to be practical to pursue punishing it when it gets widespread enough.

When you're trying to reunify the country, which was the primary goal of the North by the way, in the end you need to be able to let things go instead of punishing almost an entire culture.

It's not a fun thought, but that's how it is with these things. The same thing happened in Rwanda; most people who participated in the genocide have not been punished, because most of the population mobilized to do it. There's a point where it just can't feasibly be done.

Yet we could have very easily hung the Confederate leaders that started the war. Or at least keep them imprisoned or prevent them from pursuing politics again.

They were going to put Davis on trial, but they didn't go through with it because they were afraid a judge might say that secession is legal.

I imagine that was the case for a lot of Confederate leaders. There was also the concern that they would make martyrs out of them.

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

If there wasn't reconciliation, then it's almost a guarantee there would've been another conflict that would've ended up with hundreds, if not thousands, of more Americans dead. And on top of that, the cultural and racial tensions most likely would be significantly worse in present day in the South, not to mention it would probably still be in horrible shape economically. Reconstruction wasn't perfect, but had pure retribution been the way, things would have turned out much worse. On another note, getting the South back on its feet and integrated back into the United States was strategically a smart decision in the long term.

I never said anything about 'pure retribution'. Reconstruction is of course necessary, but that doesn't mean Confederate leaders should've gotten off scot-free.

[Salus Maior]

It ceases to be practical to pursue punishing it when it gets widespread enough.

When you're trying to reunify the country, which was the primary goal of the North by the way, in the end you need to be able to let things go instead of punishing almost an entire culture.

It's not a fun thought, but that's how it is with these things. The same thing happened in Rwanda; most people who participated in the genocide have not been punished, because most of the population mobilized to do it. There's a point where it just can't feasibly be done.

I understand the logic, but I refuse to validate it.

Well, regardless of how you feel about it, it is what it is.

[Joohan]

You're right, you didn't say they weren't human, you just want that we'd treated them like they weren't. Forefeit property rights is very banal way of hiding what Sherman's march to sea was: whole towns and cities burned to the ground, people's livelihood's turned to ash because of where they lived. Farmers robbed of their livestock and crops, their fields burned and their animals slaughtered. The common man forced into destitution and death.

And you wished that he'd done worse. Why not just say it: you wish we would have genocided the South.

All to break the back of the Southern economy and force them to surrender. And it worked. It was entirely justified. You can sit there and convince yourself it wasn't, but you'll still be wrong. Or do you believe the goal was to starve Georgians to death? Drive them into crippling poverty and debt? Destroy Georgia beyond repair? Because it wasn't. The South would be reclaimed by the Union, along with everyone in it. Restitution and recompense would follow through Reconstruction. This was always the intention. No one was being left to suffer.

Sherman's March to Sea was justified. I'm not arguing against that. I'm against the insanity that comes with thinking we should have been vengeful, the kind that Grenatia was advocating, and you apparently.

" In my mind there should have been a harder response against the Confederates post-war. Hangings for the military & civilian leadership, imprisonment for the rest. "

The South was ruined and pillaged, living under military occupation for years afterward, and would struggle to recover from the destruction for generations onward. The south didn't get slapped on the wrist, it got thrashed nearly to death. The thought that we should have killed, punished, and imprisoned even more people is inhuman. Reconstruction could have gone better, absolutely, but not through some blood drenched revenge fantasy being enacted upon an already broken and destitute people.

America today is the most powerful country on the planet, and one of the most prosperous. Obviously, reconciliation worked.

[Rojava Free State]

Nearly everyone was complicit, yes, that is the point. There were many people who were not complicit. Who not only did not actively support the Confederacy, but actively supported the Union. They existed as proof that one could be a good Southerner during the Civil War. They could have joined the Union Army, bought Union bonds, disrupted the CSA behind their lines, acted as nurses and cooks for the Union, opened up their homes as Union camps and hospitals, resisted Confederate drafts, refused to vote for pro-confederate politicians.

Yeah they could have - but they didn't. Now what? You gonna mass punish 40% of the country, more than what they already had been?

I get it, you hate racists - but perhaps you should seek to be better than them? You want these people to be empathetic towards their fellow man, then show them how, by giving them that same empathy. Rehabilitation, not retribution!

Reconstruction was rehabilitation, not retribution. Retribution would be enslaving all the Southern whites.

Exactly. Reconstruction, as conceived by Lincoln and Johnson was the best course of action. Compassion for your fellow Americans. That you and the OP both wish that our ancestors had been more brutal and vicious is what many of us are decrying as inhuman.[/quote]

We didn't need to be nasty toward all southerners, just toward the cowardly planter elite. As a social Democrat, i don't advocate violence toward the poor who were victims of the CSA.

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

Yet we could have very easily hung the Confederate leaders that started the war. Or at least keep them imprisoned or prevent them from pursuing politics again.

They were going to put Davis on trial, but they didn't go through with it because they were afraid a judge might say that secession is legal.

I imagine that was the case for a lot of Confederate leaders. There was also the concern that they would make martyrs out of them.

There's nothing in the Constitution that suggests secession is legal. They should've took the chance. The Supreme Court did eventually figure this out without much difficulty.

And they're already martyrs, so looks like that didn't work.

[Salus Maior]

They were going to put Davis on trial, but they didn't go through with it because they were afraid a judge might say that secession is legal.

I imagine that was the case for a lot of Confederate leaders. There was also the concern that they would make martyrs out of them.

There's nothing in the Constitution that suggests secession is legal. They should've took the chance. The Supreme Court did eventually figure this out without much difficulty.

And they're already martyrs, so looks like that didn't work.

Well, apparently 150 years ago we weren't so sure.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

[New Decandsor]

If there wasn't reconciliation, then it's almost a guarantee there would've been another conflict that would've ended up with hundreds, if not thousands, of more Americans dead. And on top of that, the cultural and racial tensions most likely would be significantly worse in present day in the South, not to mention it would probably still be in horrible shape economically. Reconstruction wasn't perfect, but had pure retribution been the way, things would have turned out much worse. On another note, getting the South back on its feet and integrated back into the United States was strategically a smart decision in the long term.

I never said anything about 'pure retribution'. Reconstruction is of course necessary, but that doesn't mean Confederate leaders should've gotten off scot-free.

I agree, but pursuing more aggressive actions most likely would lead to further divides and tensions between the North and the South. I mean, the Red Shirts happened and the KKK came around with Reconstruction, we can only imagine what might have happened with a more aggressive policy. I just think what we ended up with was probably the best ending we were going to get out of that situation.

[Joohan]

No, they didn't. They fought a war to try and prevent it from being abolished. They spilled the blood of their countrymen to keep it from being abolished.

The North abolished it. Lincoln abolished it. And it went into effect in the South the minute the war ended.

That's what I said, why are you just rephrasing it? Slavery was abolished, the South is apart of the Union again, and the threat of secession is practically null. So why keep holding onto the revenge fantasy?

[Page]

They were going to put Davis on trial, but they didn't go through with it because they were afraid a judge might say that secession is legal.

I imagine that was the case for a lot of Confederate leaders. There was also the concern that they would make martyrs out of them.

There's nothing in the Constitution that suggests secession is legal. They should've took the chance. The Supreme Court did eventually figure this out without much difficulty.

And they're already martyrs, so looks like that didn't work.

There was nothing in the constitution to suggest secession wasn't legal either. The United States was born by seceding from Britain. I'm not defending the confederacy, they fought for slavery and it's good that they were defeated, but as a matter of principle I don't oppose secession. I believe in the right of self-determination and autonomy.

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

All to break the back of the Southern economy and force them to surrender. And it worked. It was entirely justified. You can sit there and convince yourself it wasn't, but you'll still be wrong. Or do you believe the goal was to starve Georgians to death? Drive them into crippling poverty and debt? Destroy Georgia beyond repair? Because it wasn't. The South would be reclaimed by the Union, along with everyone in it. Restitution and recompense would follow through Reconstruction. This was always the intention. No one was being left to suffer.

Sherman's March to Sea was justified. I'm not arguing against that. I'm against the insanity that comes with thinking we should have been vengeful, the kind that Grenatia was advocating, and you apparently.

" In my mind there should have been a harder response against the Confederates post-war. Hangings for the military & civilian leadership, imprisonment for the rest. "

The South was ruined and pillaged, living under military occupation for years afterward, and would struggle to recover from the destruction for generations onward. The south didn't get slapped on the wrist, it got thrashed nearly to death. The thought that we should have killed, punished, and imprisoned even more people is inhuman. Reconstruction could have gone better, absolutely, but not through some blood drenched revenge fantasy being enacted upon an already broken and destitute people.

America today is the most powerful country on the planet, and one of the most prosperous. Obviously, reconciliation worked.

Gren and I disagree on the extent that punishment should have been levied.

The Confederacy was a rich man's country, founded by rich men for rich men to keep their slaves when the law decided morality trumps money. Those same rich men should have been punished for the crime of secession and for starting a war that cost over a million American deaths.

Not the whole South, just the Confederate leaders. The men who sounded the horns, raised the flags, and rallied the men to arms against their country for an evil and immoral cause. Not the men who did the fighting, who deceived with honeyed-words of "States' Rights" - but the men who sent those boys to die for their own greed like the vile cowards they were.

[Grenartia]

All to break the back of the Southern economy and force them to surrender. And it worked. It was entirely justified. You can sit there and convince yourself it wasn't, but you'll still be wrong. Or do you believe the goal was to starve Georgians to death? Drive them into crippling poverty and debt? Destroy Georgia beyond repair? Because it wasn't. The South would be reclaimed by the Union, along with everyone in it. Restitution and recompense would follow through Reconstruction. This was always the intention. No one was being left to suffer.

Sherman's March to Sea was justified. I'm not arguing against that. I'm against the insanity that comes with thinking we should have been vengeful, the kind that Grenatia was advocating, and you apparently.

" In my mind there should have been a harder response against the Confederates post-war. Hangings for the military & civilian leadership, imprisonment for the rest. "

See, there you go, putting words in my mouth again.

The South was ruined and pillaged, living under military occupation for years afterward, and would struggle to recover from the destruction for generations onward. The south didn't get slapped on the wrist, it got thrashed nearly to death. The thought that we should have killed, punished, and imprisoned even more people is inhuman. Reconstruction could have gone better, absolutely, but not through some blood drenched revenge fantasy being enacted upon an already broken and destitute people.

America today is the most powerful country on the planet, and one of the most prosperous. Obviously, reconciliation worked.

The freed slaves never got their 40 acres. They experienced the briefest taste of equality before having it cruelly ripped from them and having slavery in all but name reimposed on them, and thugs in white sheets lynching them for daring to want equality at all. The only thing the Union did wrong was half-assing Reconstruction. The South's spirit was not nearly as broken as you imply, and it needed to be broken even harder.

[Grenartia]

We didn't need to be nasty toward all southerners, just toward the cowardly planter elite. As a social Democrat, i don't advocate violence toward the poor who were victims of the CSA.

The poor whites were often just as complicit as the landed gentry.

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

There's nothing in the Constitution that suggests secession is legal. They should've took the chance. The Supreme Court did eventually figure this out without much difficulty.

And they're already martyrs, so looks like that didn't work.

Well, apparently 150 years ago we weren't so sure.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

I consider myself a man of action, so I'd rather do and be damned than don't and be damned.

No, they didn't. They fought a war to try and prevent it from being abolished. They spilled the blood of their countrymen to keep it from being abolished.

The North abolished it. Lincoln abolished it. And it went into effect in the South the minute the war ended.

That's what I said, why are you just rephrasing it? Slavery was abolished, the South is apart of the Union again, and the threat of secession is practically null. So why keep holding onto the revenge fantasy?

No, you didn't. He said he wished the South had abolished slavery. You said they did, which was factually incorrect. Don't lie.

And it's not a revenge fantasy. It's about justice, or the lack thereof. Over a million Americans died because some rich racists didn't want to pay blacks for their labor. Such a trivial thing led to the most destructive war in U.S. military history. And no one responsible answered for it. Do you not have a problem with that?

There's nothing in the Constitution that suggests secession is legal. They should've took the chance. The Supreme Court did eventually figure this out without much difficulty.

And they're already martyrs, so looks like that didn't work.

There was nothing in the constitution to suggest secession wasn't legal either. The United States was born by seceding from Britain. I'm not defending the confederacy, they fought for slavery and it's good that they were defeated, but as a matter of principle I don't oppose secession. I believe in the right of self-determination and autonomy.

Normally I also believe in those things, but only for practical reasons. There is no practical argument for Southern independence. The South may have it's own culture, but different states also have their own cultures. If we let everybody with even a marginally different take on American culture secede there wouldn't be a Union anymore, now would there?

[Joohan]

Sherman's March to Sea was justified. I'm not arguing against that. I'm against the insanity that comes with thinking we should have been vengeful, the kind that Grenatia was advocating, and you apparently.

" In my mind there should have been a harder response against the Confederates post-war. Hangings for the military & civilian leadership, imprisonment for the rest. "

The South was ruined and pillaged, living under military occupation for years afterward, and would struggle to recover from the destruction for generations onward. The south didn't get slapped on the wrist, it got thrashed nearly to death. The thought that we should have killed, punished, and imprisoned even more people is inhuman. Reconstruction could have gone better, absolutely, but not through some blood drenched revenge fantasy being enacted upon an already broken and destitute people.

America today is the most powerful country on the planet, and one of the most prosperous. Obviously, reconciliation worked.

Gren and I disagree on the extent that punishment should have been levied.

The Confederacy was a rich man's country, founded by rich men for rich men to keep their slaves when the law decided morality trumps money. Those same rich men should have been punished for the crime of secession and for starting a war that cost over a million American deaths.

Not the whole South, just the Confederate leaders. The men who sounded the horns, raised the flags, and rallied the men to arms against their country for an evil and immoral cause. Not the men who did the fighting, who deceived with honeyed-words of "States' Rights" - but the men who sent those boys to die for their own greed like the vile cowards they were.

Because America is a democracy. The problem with executing the confederate leaders is, they're just the representatives of the people. It wasn't just rich plantation owners who voted, it was poor and middle men too. The confederacy came into being, because the common man consented to it's conception. It wasn't some cabal of conspirators who compelled the confederacy into war, it was those representatives elected by the people to enact their will. Killing or punishing a representative for executing the people's will would be counter intuitive to the ideals which had borne America in the first place. That we merely stripped them of power, was the best possible outcome we could have hoped for.

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

Sherman's March to Sea was justified. I'm not arguing against that. I'm against the insanity that comes with thinking we should have been vengeful, the kind that Grenatia was advocating, and you apparently.

" In my mind there should have been a harder response against the Confederates post-war. Hangings for the military & civilian leadership, imprisonment for the rest. "

See, there you go, putting words in my mouth again.

The South was ruined and pillaged, living under military occupation for years afterward, and would struggle to recover from the destruction for generations onward. The south didn't get slapped on the wrist, it got thrashed nearly to death. The thought that we should have killed, punished, and imprisoned even more people is inhuman. Reconstruction could have gone better, absolutely, but not through some blood drenched revenge fantasy being enacted upon an already broken and destitute people.

America today is the most powerful country on the planet, and one of the most prosperous. Obviously, reconciliation worked.

The freed slaves never got their 40 acres. They experienced the briefest taste of equality before having it cruelly ripped from them and having slavery in all but name reimposed on them, and thugs in white sheets lynching them for daring to want equality at all. The only thing the Union did wrong was half-assing Reconstruction. The South's spirit was not nearly as broken as you imply, and it needed to be broken even harder.

I somewhat agree here.

Part of Reconstruction should have been about crushing Confederate sympathies by annihilating the Confederacy's legacy. The spirit needed to be fully broken before it could be repaired. Because we didn't we have a Japan-like situation, where many don't even realize the South were the baddies.

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

Gren and I disagree on the extent that punishment should have been levied.

The Confederacy was a rich man's country, founded by rich men for rich men to keep their slaves when the law decided morality trumps money. Those same rich men should have been punished for the crime of secession and for starting a war that cost over a million American deaths.

Not the whole South, just the Confederate leaders. The men who sounded the horns, raised the flags, and rallied the men to arms against their country for an evil and immoral cause. Not the men who did the fighting, who deceived with honeyed-words of "States' Rights" - but the men who sent those boys to die for their own greed like the vile cowards they were.

Because America is a democracy. The problem with executing the confederate leaders is, they're just the representatives of the people. It wasn't just rich plantation owners who voted, it was poor and middle men too. The confederacy came into being, because the common man consented to it's conception. It wasn't some cabal of conspirators who compelled the confederacy into war, it was those representatives elected by the people to enact their will. Killing or punishing a representative for executing the people's will would be counter intuitive to the ideals which had borne America in the first place. That we merely stripped them of power, was the best possible outcome we could have hoped for.

That's a pretty fucking warped take on it.

These guys weren't elected to secede. They were elected to represent their states. Instead, they represented the rich Southern slave owner. Unless you're trying to tell me you believe that horseshit about "States' Rights"? "Democracy" is not an argument. When it comes down to what is lawful and what is moral, and the two are not aligned, there is only one option. The Confederates chose the option that was neither lawful nor moral. Stop trying to justify treason.

[Joohan]

Sherman's March to Sea was justified. I'm not arguing against that. I'm against the insanity that comes with thinking we should have been vengeful, the kind that Grenatia was advocating, and you apparently.

" In my mind there should have been a harder response against the Confederates post-war. Hangings for the military & civilian leadership, imprisonment for the rest. "

See, there you go, putting words in my mouth again.

That was Trolzyn I was quoting

The freed slaves never got their 40 acres. They experienced the briefest taste of equality before having it cruelly ripped from them and having slavery in all but name reimposed on them, and thugs in white sheets lynching them for daring to want equality at all. The only thing the Union did wrong was half-assing Reconstruction. The South's spirit was not nearly as broken as you imply, and it needed to be broken even harder.

Well, actually, we went pretty hard against the KKK during reconstruction - it was declared a terrorist organization in 1870, and military forces were used to combat them. As for reconstruction:

" Father forgive them, for they know not what they do. "

Lincoln was the bigger man, and the history of this country is better for it.

[Ethel mermania]

To be fair to Lee, on his deathbed he didn't want people to continue to want secession and idolize the Confederacy. He wanted them to leave the war behind.

I'm not a Lee fan, but he has complicated motivations.

Fair. He gets points for that.

Well then I have great news, they did! Slavery was eventually abolished. Now, please, stop trying to justify any revenge fantasies.

No, they didn't. They fought a war to try and prevent it from being abolished. They spilled the blood of their countrymen to keep it from being abolished.

The North abolished it. Lincoln abolished it. And it went into effect in the South the minute the war ended.

No he didnt, the emancipation proclamation only effected areas under rebel control. No slave in a union state was freed. No slave in southern territory already controlled by the union, was freed. It was a war measure to deny the south the fruits of slave labor

[Thermodolia]

I am entirely convinced that American Civil War threads on NSG exist purely as a safe space for people to vent all their edgy internet tough guy comments.

People hiding behind feigned patriotism to justify their feelings about wanting to kill southerners or anyone else they deem racist.

The ones who are the most vocal about this are southerners

[Last Breath]

See, there you go, putting words in my mouth again.

That was Trolzyn I was quoting

The freed slaves never got their 40 acres. They experienced the briefest taste of equality before having it cruelly ripped from them and having slavery in all but name reimposed on them, and thugs in white sheets lynching them for daring to want equality at all. The only thing the Union did wrong was half-assing Reconstruction. The South's spirit was not nearly as broken as you imply, and it needed to be broken even harder.

Well, actually, we went pretty hard against the KKK during reconstruction - it was declared a terrorist organization in 1870, and military forces were used to combat them. As for reconstruction:

" Father forgive them, for they know not what they do. "

Lincoln was the bigger man, and the history of this country is better for it.

Letting the South off easy allowed it to continue to violate the rights of African Americans. Simply forgiving a group of states who decided to commit treason over not being able to own other people is naive.

[Thermodolia]

Only if they fought for and or materially supported the Confederacy. People like Newton Knight and the other Southern Loyalists who counter-rebelled against the Confederacy or otherwise fought for or materially supported the Union would not suffer any consequences.

So practically the entire South? Or, about 40% of the national population? The southern leaders who succeeded were voted into office and supported by the majority of the population. It's thought that nearly 800,000 men served in the confederate Army, would those men who willingly volunteered or fulfilled their duties as drafties be punished too? How about the families who supported their men in the fighting by buying war bonds, traveling with them to act as nurses on the battlefields, or cooked their meals? How about the families who opened up their homes to act as camps and hospitals? Nearly everyone was complicit.

I get it, you hate racists - but perhaps you should seek to be better than them? You want these people to be empathetic towards their fellow man, then show them how, by giving them that same empathy. Rehabilitation, not retribution!

No other nation did that though. Every other nation executed the rebel leadership not letting them live on.

[Thermodolia]

Leeaboos hate being told the South was bad and deserved it.

For all intents and purposes, Lee was a great general and, if you ask me, the only "good" Confederate political figure. He didn't fight for slavery, he fought for Virginia. That's admirable. The CSA as a whole was still pretty fucked, though.

Also, "Leeaboo". I'm stealing this.

Lee is a goddamn traitor who should have been hung, drawn and quartered.

[Joohan]

Because America is a democracy. The problem with executing the confederate leaders is, they're just the representatives of the people. It wasn't just rich plantation owners who voted, it was poor and middle men too. The confederacy came into being, because the common man consented to it's conception. It wasn't some cabal of conspirators who compelled the confederacy into war, it was those representatives elected by the people to enact their will. Killing or punishing a representative for executing the people's will would be counter intuitive to the ideals which had borne America in the first place. That we merely stripped them of power, was the best possible outcome we could have hoped for.

That's a pretty fucking warped take on it.

These guys weren't elected to secede. They were elected to represent their states. Instead, they represented the rich Southern slave owner. Unless you're trying to tell me you believe that horseshit about "States' Rights"? "Democracy" is not an argument. When it comes down to what is lawful and what is moral, and the two are not aligned, there is only one option. The Confederates chose the option that was neither lawful nor moral. Stop trying to justify treason.

They were elected to act a representatives for the people - everyone, rich and poor, had a say in voting these people in. When the southern states succeeded, it wasn't against the people's will, it had mass appeal. Parades, parties, droves of volunteers, all followed in the wake of succession. The Confederacy wasn't forced upon the common man, he'd consented to it. Sure it was illegal - but they were only allowed to do it because the people wanted and allowed them to. You can't be a democratic nation, while prosecuting 40% of the population.

[Last Breath]

That's a pretty fucking warped take on it.

These guys weren't elected to secede. They were elected to represent their states. Instead, they represented the rich Southern slave owner. Unless you're trying to tell me you believe that horseshit about "States' Rights"? "Democracy" is not an argument. When it comes down to what is lawful and what is moral, and the two are not aligned, there is only one option. The Confederates chose the option that was neither lawful nor moral. Stop trying to justify treason.

They were elected to act a representatives for the people - everyone, rich and poor, had a say in voting these people in. When the southern states succeeded, it wasn't against the people's will, it had mass appeal. Parades, parties, droves of volunteers, all followed in the wake of succession. The Confederacy wasn't forced upon the common man, he'd consented to it. Sure it was illegal - but they were only allowed to do it because the people wanted and allowed them to. You can't be a democratic nation, while prosecuting 40% of the population.

You can if those people broke the law, and the last time I checked treason was a crime.