American civil war question

[Gospel]

The point is history shows it does not put things to rest.

Yeah, according to history written by white people. Ever think of how many black people have been hung and how many of our leaders have been killed throughout American history? Where is the Black uprising that white people are so afraid of if the extreme violence doesn't work? surely we have every reason to put a fat dick in America's ass but we don't. I wonder why. Maybe if America used that same gumption to destroy all Confederate monuments and hang all the traitors back then we wouldn't have January 6, 2021, to talk about. Instead, we'd have white-on-white crime between disenfranchised hillbillies.

Edit: and by would have I mean white on white crime & disenfranchised hillbillies (and the likes) would be a major political topic instead of them going overall ignored as they are today. They'd be seen as a problem to America since they were treated as the problem they were in the past.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Hi all,

My knowledge of the US civil war is not that great. I do know Abraham Lincoln was willing to negotiate with the south even into 1865. I assume the south had some clout for a while even then.

My question is this. Was the south so defeated it could not have stopped from happening what happened to the Nazi leaders after World War Two eighty years later?

I think sometimes that is what should have happened. Lincoln and Johnson should have just taken all the Confederate political leaders and hung them as well as all the southern aristocrats.

I think the best answer to that question is to recognize that slavery was okay within the U.S. since its inception. This attitude and acceptance was the problem from the beginning. It certainly needed to change like any other prejudice but the north had dirt on its hands as well. The north certainly wanted to change this historical injustice and was willing to do so without violence. To have carried out mass executions certainly would not have gained historical favor going forward. It would have merely prolonged the violence.

 

[Jarhyn]

Hi all,

My knowledge of the US civil war is not that great. I do know Abraham Lincoln was willing to negotiate with the south even into 1865. I assume the south had some clout for a while even then.

My question is this. Was the south so defeated it could not have stopped from happening what happened to the Nazi leaders after World War Two eighty years later?

I think sometimes that is what should have happened. Lincoln and Johnson should have just taken all the Confederate political leaders and hung them as well as all the southern aristocrats.

I think the best answer to that question is to recognize that slavery was okay within the U.S. since its inception. This attitude and acceptance was the problem from the beginning. It certainly needed to change like any other prejudice but the north had dirt on its hands as well. The north certainly wanted to change this historical injustice and was willing to do so without violence. To have carried out mass executions certainly would not have gained historical favor going forward. It would have merely prolonged the violence.

You are wrong.

The fact is that trying the Nazis, holding them accountable at the top and then tearing down their institutions, and removing their officials from power worked.

Not doing it prolonged the violence against black people, for nearly a century.

Putting the boot down on slavery and it's legacy would have been painful, and yes perhaps violent. But I would much rather a world where slavery and it's legacy treated the way Germans treat Nazis than what we got.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Hi all,

My knowledge of the US civil war is not that great. I do know Abraham Lincoln was willing to negotiate with the south even into 1865. I assume the south had some clout for a while even then.

My question is this. Was the south so defeated it could not have stopped from happening what happened to the Nazi leaders after World War Two eighty years later?

I think sometimes that is what should have happened. Lincoln and Johnson should have just taken all the Confederate political leaders and hung them as well as all the southern aristocrats.

I think the best answer to that question is to recognize that slavery was okay within the U.S. since its inception. This attitude and acceptance was the problem from the beginning. It certainly needed to change like any other prejudice but the north had dirt on its hands as well. The north certainly wanted to change this historical injustice and was willing to do so without violence. To have carried out mass executions certainly would not have gained historical favor going forward. It would have merely prolonged the violence.

You are wrong.

The fact is that trying the Nazis, holding them accountable at the top and then tearing down their institutions, and removing their officials from power worked.

Not doing it prolonged the violence against black people, for nearly a century.

Putting the boot down on slavery and it's legacy would have been painful, and yes perhaps violent. But I would much rather a world where slavery and it's legacy treated the way Germans treat Nazis than what we got.

I agree with the moral aspect of your argument, just not the practical aspect. I don't think that what you are advocating was possible. If such things were possible there would never have been a Soviet Union, Afghanistan would be a democracy, Vietnam would have had a happy ending too, and Korea.

 

[Bomb#20]

I think sometimes that is what should have happened. Lincoln and Johnson should have just taken all the Confederate political leaders and hung them as well as all the southern aristocrats.

So, go all French Revolution on their asses? The Committee of Public Safety guillotined children for being aristocrats.

The guillotine would not have been unreasonable considering their treason and the fact they killed their own fellow citizens just so that they can enslave rape & murder, black folks.

And you can tell whether somebody committed treason, and killed his own fellow citizens just so he could enslave, rape and murder black folks, by inspecting his family tree, to check whether he's an aristocrat?

 

[laughing dog]

er.. Yes, it does. Very strongly.

Whether or not John Smith is a metal worker does not depend on his belief, so no it does not.

Because it's true.

But due to the messiness of history and its categories, it is not "true" in the sense that oxygen is an element. Your belief that something is true does not make it so.

 

[Gospel]

You are wrong.

The fact is that trying the Nazis, holding them accountable at the top and then tearing down their institutions, and removing their officials from power worked.

Not doing it prolonged the violence against black people, for nearly a century.

Putting the boot down on slavery and it's legacy would have been painful, and yes perhaps violent. But I would much rather a world where slavery and it's legacy treated the way Germans treat Nazis than what we got.

I agree with the moral aspect of your argument, just not the practical aspect. I don't think that what you are advocating was possible. If such things were possible there would never have been a Soviet Union, Afghanistan would be a democracy, Vietnam would have had a happy ending too, and Korea.

Blah, I'm just tired of history lesson after history lesson of massive amounts of average everyday folks being massacred by a bunch of evil nitwits. I think it's time we have at least one in the books where a massive group of assholes get teabagged 6 feet into the ground. It's only fair.

 

[Gospel]

The guillotine would not have been unreasonable considering their treason and the fact they killed their own fellow citizens just so that they can enslave rape & murder, black folks.

And you can tell whether somebody committed treason, and killed his own fellow citizens just so he could enslave, rape and murder black folks, by inspecting his family tree, to check whether he's an aristocrat?

Glad you weren't one of the generals representing the north. You'd be too busy asking all 90ish thousand of the confederate soldiers killed and 400,000 captured to use ancestry.com.

 

[Gospel]

Look, I'm an easy target to get at on this forum. I'm not the brightest, but even I know those who align with the Confederate States of America make it very easy to spot them (In the long-gone past up to today). Just look at footage from the US capitol on January 6, 2021 for example. Flags EVERYWHERE. The police had good reason to go ham on those asses with force but only one of them got shot. Could you imagine a bunch of Muslims attacking the capital in 2017 while they were confirming Trump's win while flying ISIS flags? That would have been a massacre the majority of Americans would not have had a problem with. January 6th, 2021 on the other hand, it's just the good ole boys that don't mean any harm.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

The American Civil War was not a Total War and was never intended to be. The closest it came was Sherman's March to the Sea, but even his targets were chosen for their military strategic importance (Sherman preferred the term 'Hard War'). By contrast WWII was a Total War. It's easy to speculate today with 160 years of hindsight that we should have been harder on the South, but at the time it was likely impossible to predict how shitty a loser they would be and for how long they would hold a grudge. There's also the whole time-machine fallacy - even if we executed scorched earth tactics, how can anyone be sure we'd be in a better place today? Racism seems to be coming from a lot more places than Southern Aristocrats these days.

aa

 

[Gospel]

The American Civil War was not a Total War and was never intended to be. The closest it came was Sherman's March to the Sea, but even his targets were chosen for their military strategic importance (Sherman preferred the term 'Hard War'). By contrast WWII was a Total War. It's easy to speculate today with 160 years of hindsight that we should have been harder on the South, but at the time it was likely impossible to predict how shitty a loser they would be and for how long they would hold a grudge. There's also the whole time-machine fallacy - even if we executed scorched earth tactics, how can anyone be sure we'd be in a better place today? Racism seems to be coming from a lot more places than Southern Aristocrats these days.

aa

How can anyone be sure we'd be in a better place today? Just look at European history and how many people they've killed or indirectly caused the death of to colonize America and there is your answer. Would America be better off today if the Native Americans didn't perish by its wars and diseases, then freed and armed all slaves, gave them land, and helped them build a nation of their own in North America? I highly doubt that. It was boot to neck 100% of the time as it is today on the international scale. Don't roll up in here blowing smoke around and think I'll exit the room to escape the funk. When the smoke clears you'll find truth staring fiercely at you.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

The American Civil War was not a Total War and was never intended to be. The closest it came was Sherman's March to the Sea, but even his targets were chosen for their military strategic importance (Sherman preferred the term 'Hard War'). By contrast WWII was a Total War. It's easy to speculate today with 160 years of hindsight that we should have been harder on the South, but at the time it was likely impossible to predict how shitty a loser they would be and for how long they would hold a grudge. There's also the whole time-machine fallacy - even if we executed scorched earth tactics, how can anyone be sure we'd be in a better place today? Racism seems to be coming from a lot more places than Southern Aristocrats these days.

aa

How can anyone be sure we'd be in a better place today? Just look at European history and how many people they've killed or indirectly caused the death of to colonize America and there is your answer. Would America be better off today if the Native Americans didn't perish by its wars and diseases, then freed and armed all slaves, gave them land, and helped them build a nation of their own in North America? I highly doubt that. It was boot to neck 100% of the time as it is today on the international scale. Don't roll up in here blowing smoke around and think I'll exit the room to escape the funk. When the smoke clears you'll find truth staring fiercely at you.

What's the smoke? I'm asking questions that I legitimately don't know the answers to, toward people who seem to have it all figured out (and not particularly to you, btw, as our posts were simultaneous). Also, are you saying that the North should have 'colonized' the South the way it did 200 to 400 years prior? That they strayed from the playbook this time and - boom racism?

aa

 

[Gospel]

The American Civil War was not a Total War and was never intended to be. The closest it came was Sherman's March to the Sea, but even his targets were chosen for their military strategic importance (Sherman preferred the term 'Hard War'). By contrast WWII was a Total War. It's easy to speculate today with 160 years of hindsight that we should have been harder on the South, but at the time it was likely impossible to predict how shitty a loser they would be and for how long they would hold a grudge. There's also the whole time-machine fallacy - even if we executed scorched earth tactics, how can anyone be sure we'd be in a better place today? Racism seems to be coming from a lot more places than Southern Aristocrats these days.

aa

How can anyone be sure we'd be in a better place today? Just look at European history and how many people they've killed or indirectly caused the death of to colonize America and there is your answer. Would America be better off today if the Native Americans didn't perish by its wars and diseases, then freed and armed all slaves, gave them land, and helped them build a nation of their own in North America? I highly doubt that. It was boot to neck 100% of the time as it is today on the international scale. Don't roll up in here blowing smoke around and think I'll exit the room to escape the funk. When the smoke clears you'll find truth staring fiercely at you.

What's the smoke? I'm asking questions that I legitimately don't know the answers to, toward people who seem to have it all figured out (and not particularly to you, btw, as our posts were simultaneous). Also, are you saying that the North should have 'colonized' the South the way it did 200 to 400 years prior? That they strayed from the playbook this time and - boom racism?

aa

Yeah, the north should have treated the south like the outsiders they deserved to be treated as. Black people and Native American's got that treatment JUST BECAUSE, while those idiots actually tried to kill every and anyone for trying to stop them from making black people their slaves.

Btw: (this goes for everyone even those who don't deserve it), my apologies for coming across as heated and hostile. This is a hot topic for me for obvious reasons. I do recognize that if it were not for the many brave white people from the north the civil war may have been lost.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

What's the smoke? I'm asking questions that I legitimately don't know the answers to, toward people who seem to have it all figured out (and not particularly to you, btw, as our posts were simultaneous). Also, are you saying that the North should have 'colonized' the South the way it did 200 to 400 years prior? That they strayed from the playbook this time and - boom racism?

aa

Yeah, the north should have treated the south like the outsiders they deserved to be treated as. Black people and Native American's got that treatment JUST BECAUSE, while those idiots actually tried to kill every and anyone for trying to stop them from making black people their slaves.

See, I'd go the other direction. While the South was certainly deserving of that level of retribution, at some point the US had to stop making such reprehensible lapses in judgement about what it's society was going to be. The Civil War itself was an attempt to answer for past transgressions. It is a difficult burden for a young country to pay for one tragedy with another, particularly if at the time it can be avoided. Albeit, after 160 years of observation it may very well be the case that tragedy wasn't avoided after all (at least not to minorities in this country). But I can't fault the decision-makers at the time for not having that level of foresight.

aa

 

[Bomb#20]

The guillotine would not have been unreasonable considering their treason and the fact they killed their own fellow citizens just so that they can enslave rape & murder, black folks.

And you can tell whether somebody committed treason, and killed his own fellow citizens just so he could enslave, rape and murder black folks, by inspecting his family tree, to check whether he's an aristocrat?

Glad you weren't one of the generals representing the north. You'd be too busy asking all 90ish thousand of the confederate soldiers killed and 400,000 captured to use ancestry.com.

I'm glad I wasn't a general too. But you know perfectly well there's a difference between how you should treat an army of soldiers shooting at you, and how you should treat disarmed POWs, and how you should treat civilian noncombatants who are fit and of military age, and how you should treat civilian noncombatant children and elderly and disabled people; likewise, you know perfectly well that nooses and guillotines are not weapons of war. If I were one of the generals representing the north it would no doubt prove somebody in charge of army promotions had poor judgment, but it wouldn't mean I wouldn't order an assault on a defended position, and it wouldn't mean what subsequently cost us the battle was not my military ineptitude but my failure to order a war crime against the local civilian population.

 

[Gospel]

Glad you weren't one of the generals representing the north. You'd be too busy asking all 90ish thousand of the confederate soldiers killed and 400,000 captured to use ancestry.com.

I'm glad I wasn't a general too. But you know perfectly well there's a difference between how you should treat an army of soldiers shooting at you, and how you should treat disarmed POWs, and how you should treat civilian noncombatants who are fit and of military age, and how you should treat civilian noncombatant children and elderly and disabled people; likewise, you know perfectly well that nooses and guillotines are not weapons of war. If I were one of the generals representing the north it would no doubt prove somebody in charge of army promotions had poor judgment, but it wouldn't mean I wouldn't order an assault on a defended position, and it wouldn't mean what subsequently cost us the battle was not my military ineptitude but my failure to order a war crime against the local civilian population.

Fuck them! War crime my ass, we're talking about people that participated in raping children & selling babies and thought that was worth destroying America for. The fuck outta here.

Edit: I don't mean Bomb#20 to get outta here. I like you It's a figure of speech.

 

[Gospel]

I honestly think America would be much stronger today if blacks in the south were given the authority and support in taking over farms properties and other businesses from the confederacy and slowly but surely ride the south of them almost entirely. Plus it would have possibly avoided the current condition fo the black community being that from the start we were given a sense of ownership. BUT NOOO, LET THE RACIST FUCKS KEEP THEIR STUFF AND SLAVES SET FREE TO DO THE NOTHING THEY WERE ALLOWED TO DO. What a fucking farce.

 

[Jarhyn]

I honestly think America would be much stronger today if blacks in the south were given the authority and support in taking over farms properties and other businesses from the confederacy and slowly but surely ride the south of them almost entirely. Plus it would have possibly avoided the current condition fo the black community being that from the start we were given a sense of ownership. BUT NOOO, LET THE RACIST FUCKS KEEP THEIR STUFF AND SLAVES SET FREE TO DO THE NOTHING THEY WERE ALLOWED TO DO. What a fucking farce.

They created, through engineering, a racial culture of uniform poverty. Why is it so out of the pale to engineer the uniform poverty out of the culture? It takes work, sure, but it only takes a critical mass of access to wealth peppered across a community for it to start gaining traction.

 

[Toni]

What's the smoke? I'm asking questions that I legitimately don't know the answers to, toward people who seem to have it all figured out (and not particularly to you, btw, as our posts were simultaneous). Also, are you saying that the North should have 'colonized' the South the way it did 200 to 400 years prior? That they strayed from the playbook this time and - boom racism?

aa

Yeah, the north should have treated the south like the outsiders they deserved to be treated as. Black people and Native American's got that treatment JUST BECAUSE, while those idiots actually tried to kill every and anyone for trying to stop them from making black people their slaves.

Btw: (this goes for everyone even those who don't deserve it), my apologies for coming across as heated and hostile. This is a hot topic for me for obvious reasons. I do recognize that if it were not for the many brave white people from the north the civil war may have been lost.

No, the North should have treated the South as defeated and as brothers and sisters, although, let’s be frank, the women were not thought of as beyond their own families’ responsibility. More or less, that was what happened. We cannot, we must not forget that the South was us. They were literally our brothers and sisters. Our founding fathers made a compromise that was/is detestable but one the felt they had to do in order to form our nation.

Today most of us recognized slavery as an institution and the kidnapping and enslavement of people who just happened to be from Africa and the attempted genocide of Indians and the theft of their lands as the unconscionable evils that they were and remain. I say most of us because there frankly are those among us who see these things as necessary and not necessarily evil. Of course they were horrendously evil and we still bear the scars of those evils today—all of us. The scars and the burden and the price of such evil is still visited most heavily on the descendants of enslaved people and on Native Americans today. I am aware that the previous statement is a vast understatement. I simply do not have the words to adequately express the evil and shame that those of us who have benefited from these di not actually recognize that we have benefited because this was all ‘a long time ago.’ Or rather admit it. Obviously those who rail so loudly against CRT feel the deep shame and must attempt to enact laws to prevent the totality of our history from being taught.

 

[Gospel]

What's the smoke? I'm asking questions that I legitimately don't know the answers to, toward people who seem to have it all figured out (and not particularly to you, btw, as our posts were simultaneous). Also, are you saying that the North should have 'colonized' the South the way it did 200 to 400 years prior? That they strayed from the playbook this time and - boom racism?

aa

Yeah, the north should have treated the south like the outsiders they deserved to be treated as. Black people and Native American's got that treatment JUST BECAUSE, while those idiots actually tried to kill every and anyone for trying to stop them from making black people their slaves.

Btw: (this goes for everyone even those who don't deserve it), my apologies for coming across as heated and hostile. This is a hot topic for me for obvious reasons. I do recognize that if it were not for the many brave white people from the north the civil war may have been lost.

No, the North should have treated the South as defeated and as brothers and sisters, although, let’s be frank, the women were not thought of as beyond their own families’ responsibility. More or less, that was what happened. We cannot, we must not forget that the South was us. They were literally our brothers and sisters. Our founding fathers made a compromise that was/is detestable but one the felt they had to do in order to form our nation.

Today most of us recognized slavery as an institution and the kidnapping and enslavement of people who just happened to be from Africa and the attempted genocide of Indians and the theft of their lands as the unconscionable evils that they were and remain. I say most of us because there frankly are those among us who see these things as necessary and not necessarily evil. Of course they were horrendously evil and we still bear the scars of those evils today—all of us. The scars and the burden and the price of such evil is still visited most heavily on the descendants of enslaved people and on Native Americans today. I am aware that the previous statement is a vast understatement. I simply do not have the words to adequately express the evil and shame that those of us who have benefited from these di not actually recognize that we have benefited because this was all ‘a long time ago.’ Or rather admit it. Obviously those who rail so loudly against CRT feel the deep shame and must attempt to enact laws to prevent the totality of our history from being taught.

Well until the day they are no longer seen as "brothers and sisters" America will remain racist. Those racist "brothers and sisters" were not needed to keep America going. Black people would have happily assisted in not only rebuilding the south (which they did) but running it along with whites from the north. I will never understand why they weren't trusted with that but instead left once more in the hands of their former "owners".