Slapping Wrists for Treason

[Kowani]

Regardless of what you think of the confederacy, I believe the consensus of most historians is that Reconstruction was a disaster.

Only because it was half-assed.

Of course.

Regardless of what you think of the confederacy, I believe the consensus of most historians is that Reconstruction was a disaster.

I wouldn't say a disaster ( the south is a well integrated part of the country today after all ), but it certainly could have gone much better.

No, it was a disaster. The spirit of the Confederacy needed to be broken, entirely, and it was not. Blacks were barely emancipated, the poor whites remained poor, and still remain poor, the regional culture of the south remains markedly different from the rest of the country.

[Sodoran Alesia]

Institutionalized racism was literally left to flourish because the North gave up, allowing southerners to continue treating African Americans in basically the same ways they had been treated before. The freedoms that had been granted to them became all but ignored.

that... wasn't unique to the south i'm afraid...

And how does that justify the south's institutionalized racism? Last I checked, northern states didn't go as far as the south did with jim crow laws, black codes, sharecropping, the KKK, and the disenfranchisement of black voters, etc. (it goes on).

[Joohan]

Only because it was half-assed.

Of course.

I wouldn't say a disaster ( the south is a well integrated part of the country today after all ), but it certainly could have gone much better.

No, it was a disaster. The spirit of the Confederacy needed to be broken, entirely, and it was not. Blacks were barely emancipated, the poor whites remained poor, and still remain poor, the regional culture of the south remains markedly different from the rest of the country.

That the south is culturally different to the rest of the United States isn't a problem, there's no real threat of session today from any state, the spirit of the confederacy lies in enjoying rural living and laughing at northerners, and despite being disproportionately poorer than most parts of the country the south today is still a highly developed first world economy with strong legal institutions. I'd say things have wound up pretty great, all things considered, and I don't think more mass punishment would have added to the current level of prosperity.

[Thermodolia]

You got the point though. Those who won a civil war end up executing the leadership.


Why are you trying to make excuses for the CSA leadership and rich plantation owners? They where the ones in charge and they should have been arrested and executed for their crimes.

Yet you think we shouldn’t have done that for some very stupid reasons

England was an aristocratic monarchy. The belligerents of that war wielded political power by birth right.

That doesn’t change my point at all

The United States is a democracy. The belligerents of the civil war wielded power given to them by the people. The confederate leaders were representatives of the localities - entrusted by their constitutes to wield political power on their behalf. When independence of the southern states was declared, there was no mass rebellion or rejection of their leaders decisions, there was celebration. The people gave the confederate leaders their power, and consented to the actions taken in their name. If the confederate leaders had been executed for fulfilling the desires of their constitutes, it would have trampled upon the very democratic ideals which founded this country. Whatever scars were left by the civil war, never could have been more jarring than watching the government execute the leaders you had elected to give power to. That they were merely stripped of power was the best possible outcome for American democracy.

This is a stupidly dumb take. Seriously you should feel bad for writing that and thinking it’s a good take.

But still those elected officials didn’t have the power to declare independence from the US and the elections in the CSA had no bearing on American democracy

[Last Breath]

Of course.


No, it was a disaster. The spirit of the Confederacy needed to be broken, entirely, and it was not. Blacks were barely emancipated, the poor whites remained poor, and still remain poor, the regional culture of the south remains markedly different from the rest of the country.

That the south is culturally different to the rest of the United States isn't a problem, there's no real threat of session today from any state, the spirit of the confederacy lies in enjoying rural living and laughing at northerners, and despite being disproportionately poorer than most parts of the country the south today is still a highly developed first world economy with strong legal institutions. I'd say things have wound up pretty great, all things considered, and I don't think more mass punishment would have added to the current level of prosperity.

Even if the South today is fine (a statement I do not agree with), the failure of reconstruction still led to several decades of oppression for African Americans, who were A) many a time forced to revert to slavery in all but name, and B) denied the right to vote because of terrorist organizations like the KKK, not to mention the massive amount of segregation (yes there was some degree of segregation in the North, but not nearly on the same level)

[SangMar]

England was an aristocratic monarchy. The belligerents of that war wielded political power by birth right.

That doesn’t change my point at all

The United States is a democracy. The belligerents of the civil war wielded power given to them by the people. The confederate leaders were representatives of the localities - entrusted by their constitutes to wield political power on their behalf. When independence of the southern states was declared, there was no mass rebellion or rejection of their leaders decisions, there was celebration. The people gave the confederate leaders their power, and consented to the actions taken in their name. If the confederate leaders had been executed for fulfilling the desires of their constitutes, it would have trampled upon the very democratic ideals which founded this country. Whatever scars were left by the civil war, never could have been more jarring than watching the government execute the leaders you had elected to give power to. That they were merely stripped of power was the best possible outcome for American democracy.

This is a stupidly dumb take. Seriously you should feel bad for writing that and thinking it’s a good take.

But still those elected officials didn’t have the power to declare independence from the US and the elections in the CSA had no bearing on American democracy

Joohan’s wrong about the English Civil War too. Take from a British person, one side was an absolute monarchy and its supporters - the “Cavaliers”. While on the other was Parliament and its supporters, who mostly didn’t have any “birth right” - known as “Roundheads”.

[Atheris]

Regardless of what you think of the confederacy, I believe the consensus of most historians is that Reconstruction was a disaster.

Only because it was half-assed.

That, and Lincoln being shot.

[Rojava Free State]

Only because it was half-assed.

Of course.

I wouldn't say a disaster ( the south is a well integrated part of the country today after all ), but it certainly could have gone much better.

No, it was a disaster. The spirit of the Confederacy needed to be broken, entirely, and it was not. Blacks were barely emancipated, the poor whites remained poor, and still remain poor, the regional culture of the south remains markedly different from the rest of the country.

The South continued to fall behind the north socially and economically.

[Rojava Free State]

Of course.


No, it was a disaster. The spirit of the Confederacy needed to be broken, entirely, and it was not. Blacks were barely emancipated, the poor whites remained poor, and still remain poor, the regional culture of the south remains markedly different from the rest of the country.

That the south is culturally different to the rest of the United States isn't a problem, there's no real threat of session today from any state, the spirit of the confederacy lies in enjoying rural living and laughing at northerners, and despite being disproportionately poorer than most parts of the country the south today is still a highly developed first world economy with strong legal institutions. I'd say things have wound up pretty great, all things considered, and I don't think more mass punishment would have added to the current level of prosperity.

As someone who has relatives in Georgia and has visited Florida, no the south is not a highly developed first world place with strong legal institutions.

[Atheris]

That the south is culturally different to the rest of the United States isn't a problem, there's no real threat of session today from any state, the spirit of the confederacy lies in enjoying rural living and laughing at northerners, and despite being disproportionately poorer than most parts of the country the south today is still a highly developed first world economy with strong legal institutions. I'd say things have wound up pretty great, all things considered, and I don't think more mass punishment would have added to the current level of prosperity.

As someone who has relatives in Georgia and has visited Florida, no the south is not a highly developed first world place with strong legal institutions.

The south is first world. It's in the United States. The United States is first world. The United States is actually the leader (or a major driving cause) of the first world according to geopolitical and dictionary definitions.

[Deacarsia]

My view on the War Between the States is similar to that of Lysander Spooner, a contemporary abolitionist. While chattel slavery was an illegitimate institution, the Southern states were fully within their legal rights to secede from the Union, and the war instead was launched in order to force them back into the Union for the purposes of enforcing the Morrill Tariff of 1861.

This is corroborated by the immediate post-war correspondence between Lord Acton of England and General Robert E. Lee of Virginia, where Acton expresses his reasons for sympathizing with the Southern cause.

Thus, despite my opposition to slavery, I must subscribe to the Copperhead line.

[Atheris]

My view on the War Between the States is similar to that of Lysander Spooner, a contemporary abolitionist. While chattel slavery was an illegitimate institution, the Southern states were fully within their legal rights to secede from the Union, and the war instead was launched in order to force them back into the Union for the purposes of enforcing the Morrill Tariff of 1861.

The South attacked the Union. Also, the tariff was opposed the most by South Carolina, and they got a noticeable amount of leniency on how much they had to pay.

This is corroborated by the immediate post-war correspondence between Lord Acton of England and General Robert E. Lee of Virginia, where Acton expresses his reasons for sympathizing with the Southern cause.

That was one person, not the whole view. The reason the CSA decided to secede was because of rich white leaders not wanting to treat black people like actual people.

Thus, despite my opposition to slavery, I must subscribe to the Copperhead line.

The Copperheads were pro-slavery and pro-racism.

[Green October Z]

As someone who has relatives in Georgia and has visited Florida, no the south is not a highly developed first world place with strong legal institutions.

The south is first world. It's in the United States. The United States is first world. The United States is actually the leader (or a major driving cause) of the first world according to geopolitical and dictionary definitions.

That it is! Some parts of the south are poor, but so are parts of the north. Some parts of the south are rich, so are some parts of the north.

[Rojava Free State]

As someone who has relatives in Georgia and has visited Florida, no the south is not a highly developed first world place with strong legal institutions.

The south is first world. It's in the United States. The United States is first world. The United States is actually the leader (or a major driving cause) of the first world according to geopolitical and dictionary definitions.

About that: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 94726.html

[SangMar]

That the south is culturally different to the rest of the United States isn't a problem, there's no real threat of session today from any state, the spirit of the confederacy lies in enjoying rural living and laughing at northerners, and despite being disproportionately poorer than most parts of the country the south today is still a highly developed first world economy with strong legal institutions. I'd say things have wound up pretty great, all things considered, and I don't think more mass punishment would have added to the current level of prosperity.

As someone who has relatives in Georgia and has visited Florida, no the south is not a highly developed first world place with strong legal institutions.

https://msdh.ms.gov/msdhsite/_static/resources/7501.pdf

Friendly reminder that Mississippi’s infant mortality rate was 8.6 in 2016. For Black infants, it went from 13.0/1000 to somewhere around 11/1000. Congrats, they’re worse than China and Bahrain to name a few. So no, the South really isn’t developed - like what Rojava said.

[Kowani]

Of course.


No, it was a disaster. The spirit of the Confederacy needed to be broken, entirely, and it was not. Blacks were barely emancipated, the poor whites remained poor, and still remain poor, the regional culture of the south remains markedly different from the rest of the country.

That the south is culturally different to the rest of the United States isn't a problem, there's no real threat of session today from any state,

“The South is well integrated”
“The South has a different regional culture.”

Pick one.

the spirit of the confederacy lies in enjoying rural living and laughing at northerners,

This is anecdotal at best, and unfalsifiable.

and despite being disproportionately poorer than most parts of the country the south today is still a highly developed first world economy

Calling the South a first world country seems a bit of a stretch.

with strong legal institutions.

Cough.

I'd say things have wound up pretty great, all things considered, and I don't think more mass punishment would have added to the current level of prosperity.

Objectively, no.

[Atheris]

The south is first world. It's in the United States. The United States is first world. The United States is actually the leader (or a major driving cause) of the first world according to geopolitical and dictionary definitions.

About that: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 94726.html

The concept of First World originated during the Cold War and included countries that were generally aligned with NATO and opposed to the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

First World
noun
the major industrialized non-Communist nations, including those in Western Europe, the United States, Canada, and Japan.

The First World consisted of the U.S., Western Europe and their allies. The Second World was the so-called Communist Bloc: the Soviet Union, China, Cuba and friends. The remaining nations, which aligned with neither group, were assigned to the Third World.

[Kowani]

My view on the War Between the States is similar to that of Lysander Spooner, a contemporary abolitionist. While chattel slavery was an illegitimate institution, the Southern states were fully within their legal rights to secede from the Union, and the war instead was launched in order to force them back into the Union for the purposes of enforcing the Morrill Tariff of 1861.

This is corroborated by the immediate post-war correspondence between Lord Acton of England and General Robert E. Lee of Virginia, where Acton expresses his reasons for sympathizing with the Southern cause.

Thus, despite my opposition to slavery, I must subscribe to the Copperhead line.

Let’s ask the VP of the Confederacy what he thought: “ [I]ts foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.”

Oh.

[Loben The 2nd]

thinking that the US has a single unified culture is one of the dumbest things i think i heard in a long ass time.

[Albrenia]

thinking that the US has a single unified culture is one of the dumbest things i think i heard in a long ass time.

I've certainly heard enough people whine about wanting to 'protect' or 'conserve' it though.

[Atheris]

My view on the War Between the States is similar to that of Lysander Spooner, a contemporary abolitionist. While chattel slavery was an illegitimate institution, the Southern states were fully within their legal rights to secede from the Union, and the war instead was launched in order to force them back into the Union for the purposes of enforcing the Morrill Tariff of 1861.

This is corroborated by the immediate post-war correspondence between Lord Acton of England and General Robert E. Lee of Virginia, where Acton expresses his reasons for sympathizing with the Southern cause.

Thus, despite my opposition to slavery, I must subscribe to the Copperhead line.

Let’s ask the VP of the Confederacy what he thought: “ [I]ts foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.”

Oh.

I wonder what the constitution said.

No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several states; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form states to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory, the institution of negro slavery as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress, and by the territorial government: and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories, shall have the right to take to such territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the states or territories of the Confederate states.

Yikes.

[The Archregimancy]

When independence of the southern states was declared, there was no mass rebellion or rejection of their leaders decisions

I must have imagined West Virginia, then.

[Atheris]

When independence of the southern states was declared, there was no mass rebellion or rejection of their leaders decisions

I must have imagined West Virginia, then.

Wait, do Kentucky, Maryland, and Mississippi not exist?

[Rojava Free State]

thinking that the US has a single unified culture is one of the dumbest things i think i heard in a long ass time.

We are bigger than Europe so I'm not surprised we culturally differ so much.

[Salus Maior]

I must have imagined West Virginia, then.

Wait, do Kentucky, Maryland, and Mississippi not exist?

Kentucky never chose to join the Confederacy in the first place. Maryland was sort of borderline.

When did Mississippi rebel against the Confederacy?