I wouldn't go so far that they should've been executed but European countries went through extensive land reform in the 19th century, with a sort of high point between 1848 and 1870
And in places like Germany or Austria/Bohemia, this worked out extremely well, just like in France
Japan and South Korea also went through multiple land reforms and I think this is a big reason why these nations were able to prosper
If land had been redistributed in the South, this would've lifted generations of African Americans out of poverty
The failure of Reconstruction shaped the US for nearly a century and in many ways to this day, it is mind-boggling
the radical republicans were right, the southern aristocracy should have been executed and their wealth redistributed
I mean I think executing all of them would have been a bit much, but yeah their political power should have been permanently broken. That being said even with land reform I doubt african americans would have been given much land, and if they had been given land, I doubt they would have been allowed to keep. The civil war heightened sympathy towards african americans but the majority of white americans, even in states that remained overwhelmingly loyal to the federal government, were still overwhelmingly racist and overwhelmingly pro-segregation. You can be against slavery and still be really racist.
Still, it is true that even maginal endowments of wealth to freed slaves dramatically changed their fortunes. Henrietta Wood is a good example. A former slave who was freed then kidnapped and sold illegally back into slavery was able to successfully sue her kidnapper for damages thanks to eye witness testimony from people who knew she had been kidnapped. She recieved $2,500 in reparations and that money had a dramatic impact not just on her or even her family but several african american communities. The reparations allowed her son to become one of the first african american law graduates in the country, and the first in Chicago. And if you trace where her family went you find her descendants being pillars of several African American communities, being local leaders all the way up until the civil rights era and beyond.
I dunno there were a lot of people trying to do the right thing, including Lincoln
+2
Options
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
if I were going to make a list of people who should have been executed at the end of the war I'd start with every planter, every CSA politician and every non-doctor officer above lieutenant, and I'd expect that list to get a lot bigger
if that seems unreasonable, well, these are the people responsible for starting and prosecuting a war which killed hundreds of thousands in defense of an institution which bought and sold humans as property; every one of them is a slaving mass-murderer and it's what they deserved
instead they got to go home and pretend like nothing happened and poison the rest of the country from inside
As a general principle I'm unconvinced of the positive political outcomes of roving death squads.
A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
Aside from maybe political elite and high military leadership I don't really think executions would have been a great idea. They'd have incentivized even more retaliatory killings than there already were. Plus like, I think literally executing the entire officers core of any fighting force is a bit much. The Confederates were nasty idiots fighting for a despicable cause but putting every officer as being responsible enough for the war to deserve death is, again, like... not okay?
Of course I'm also speaking from a reference point of not really liking the idea of capital punishment in general. And even though it is not uncommon throughout history to execute all or most members of an insurrection I don't actually think that's a historical precedent that's good to follow? Like maybe if it would have accomplished something but I don't think there is any post civil war scenario where the radical republicans don't fail. White americans, even those that opposed both slavery and the confederacy, did not care overmuch about the plight of freed slaves. That's why the radical republicans fell apart as a movement, after a decade the white voting populace in the north was simply generally unwilling to spend any more time or effort occupying the south to protect freedmen living there. They willingly and knowingly threw them to the wolves because ultimately it wasn't that important to them.
I think it's usually safe to assume that "things would've been better if we killed even more people" is fueled less by justice or reason as it is by revenge.
Aside from maybe political elite and high military leadership I don't really think executions would have been a great idea. They'd have incentivized even more retaliatory killings than there already were. Plus like, I think literally executing the entire officers core of any fighting force is a bit much. The Confederates were nasty idiots fighting for a despicable cause but putting every officer as being responsible enough for the war to deserve death is, again, like... not okay?
Of course I'm also speaking from a reference point of not really liking the idea of capital punishment in general. And even though it is not uncommon throughout history to execute all or most members of an insurrection I don't actually think that's a historical precedent that's good to follow? Like maybe if it would have accomplished something but I don't think there is any post civil war scenario where the radical republicans don't fail. White americans, even those that opposed both slavery and the confederacy, did not care overmuch about the plight of freed slaves. That's why the radical republicans fell apart as a movement, after a decade the white voting populace in the north was simply generally unwilling to spend any more time or effort occupying the south to protect freedmen living there. They willingly and knowingly threw them to the wolves because ultimately it wasn't that important to them.
If you were an Officer of any rank above Field Rank in the Confederate Army you definitely had it coming given the crimes committed under your command. And if you were any Field Rank Officer, you probably had it coming for the same reason. These people knowingly conducted a pretty brutal campaign of extremist violence and then afterwards a lot of em just... kept on doing it. If Nathan Bedford Forrest had been strung up from the nearest tree after the surrender, then the world would have been a much better place from the until now, and he was by no means alone.
If any confederate officer deserved to be unceremoniously executed it would be Nathan Forrest. Although if we're talking Lieutenant Generals or above and above I certainly don't have any argument if they had all been tried at a tribunal and given whatever punishment deemed fitting for their actions. Forrest's widely known crimes even before his time in the KKK should have certainly earned him an execution. But again, even taking that whole group that's like two dozen people. On the western theater the confederates essentially gave carte blance permission to attack all non-combatants, so I'd also include even many lower officers for them. But even if we include everyone down to a brigadier general that's like... 200-300 that survived the war? And a bunch of them were staff officers and I feel like it would have been kind of shitty to execute general's aides and the like. Again, pieces of shit, but by standards I would consider acceptable elsewhere I definitely would not consider most of them worth executing.
Gundi on
0
Options
JedocIn the scupperswith the staggers and jagsRegistered Userregular
I would definitely read a book about Clone Hitler being rescued from the Raelians when he was a kid and growing up to be like a private eye. All solving mysteries and trying to get by and explaining to people how genes don't actually work like that. Beating the shit out of the occasional Fourth Reich maniacs who show up and try to worship him.
Give it to A. Lee Martinez, he seems like he'd do a good job with the concept.
I'm pretty sure that here have been books with similar premises. And of course The Great Dictator has a doppleganger impersonate pseudo-Hitler. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7GY1Xg6X20
As a general principle I'm unconvinced of the positive political outcomes of roving death squads.
Well you'd want to gussy it up better than that, bring them in front of a big important building and denounce them at length and hang them I should think
I don’t think executing military commanders/officers would really have done any good; the problem was that the political power of the southern aristocracy persisted after the war, and eventually won out at the national level over those that favored aggressive reconstruction. That would have happened no matter how many members of the confederate army you tried.
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
I don’t think executing military commanders/officers would really have done any good; the problem was that the political power of the southern aristocracy persisted after the war, and eventually won out at the national level over those that favored aggressive reconstruction. That would have happened no matter how many members of the confederate army you tried.
All slave owners should have been executed too, and their lands, property and other wealth divided equally among their former slaves
Anyone over 18 in their family should have also been executed
I don’t think executing military commanders/officers would really have done any good; the problem was that the political power of the southern aristocracy persisted after the war, and eventually won out at the national level over those that favored aggressive reconstruction. That would have happened no matter how many members of the confederate army you tried.
All slave owners should have been executed too, and their lands, property and other wealth divided equally among their former slaves
Anyone over 18 in their family should have also been executed
I don’t think executing military commanders/officers would really have done any good; the problem was that the political power of the southern aristocracy persisted after the war, and eventually won out at the national level over those that favored aggressive reconstruction. That would have happened no matter how many members of the confederate army you tried.
All slave owners should have been executed too, and their lands, property and other wealth divided equally among their former slaves
Anyone over 18 in their family should have also been executed
Corruption of blood?
No, of deed
I'm not sure if you're trying to trap in some sort of logic trap like some godawful Ben Shapiro or Crowder fanboy, but I meant what I said
I don’t think executing military commanders/officers would really have done any good; the problem was that the political power of the southern aristocracy persisted after the war, and eventually won out at the national level over those that favored aggressive reconstruction. That would have happened no matter how many members of the confederate army you tried.
All slave owners should have been executed too, and their lands, property and other wealth divided equally among their former slaves
Anyone over 18 in their family should have also been executed
Corruption of blood?
No, of deed
Then you should select for deeds, not "everyone over 18".
StraightziHere we may reign secure, and in my choice,To reign is worth ambition though in HellRegistered Userregular
I think you're ascribing more power to change things than may have actually existed to a lot of those people.
A 19 year old white woman in 1865 never had any power to free her father's slaves. Maybe her 21 year old brother could have done something, but that doesn't seem terribly likely to me. Marriage age for women was around 22 and for men around 26, during which time you could reasonably expect them to still be living at home.
Were they, in that, still benefiting from the fact that their family owned slaves? Absolutely. But they would not necessarily be slave owners themselves, and have little to no power to actually change things.
Zonugal(He/Him) The Holiday ArmadilloI'm Santa's representative for all the southern states. And Mexico!Registered Userregular
Executing every white adult who lived in a slave owning household within the south wouldn't have been feasible.
History.com tells us, "The 1860 census shows that in the states that would soon secede from the Union, an average of more than 32 percent of white families owned slaves. Some states had far more slave owners (46 percent of families in South Carolina, 49 percent in Mississippi) while some had far less (20 percent of families in Arkansas)."
That's a huge body-count for retribution justice.
In addition, would you just be targeting on the slave states that joined with the Confederacy? Because Maryland, Missouri, Delaware, and Kentucky all engaged in slavery while aligned with the Union during the Civil War.
Posts
the radical republicans were right, the southern aristocracy should have been executed and their wealth redistributed
They engender some of the cruelest and some of the kindest thoughts toward your enemies
Oh don't tease me
And in places like Germany or Austria/Bohemia, this worked out extremely well, just like in France
Japan and South Korea also went through multiple land reforms and I think this is a big reason why these nations were able to prosper
If land had been redistributed in the South, this would've lifted generations of African Americans out of poverty
Still, it is true that even maginal endowments of wealth to freed slaves dramatically changed their fortunes. Henrietta Wood is a good example. A former slave who was freed then kidnapped and sold illegally back into slavery was able to successfully sue her kidnapper for damages thanks to eye witness testimony from people who knew she had been kidnapped. She recieved $2,500 in reparations and that money had a dramatic impact not just on her or even her family but several african american communities. The reparations allowed her son to become one of the first african american law graduates in the country, and the first in Chicago. And if you trace where her family went you find her descendants being pillars of several African American communities, being local leaders all the way up until the civil rights era and beyond.
Everyone who fought for or supported the CSA committed treason and could have been executed
Executing every single officer would have been pretty lenient
the failure of reconstruction was by design
if that seems unreasonable, well, these are the people responsible for starting and prosecuting a war which killed hundreds of thousands in defense of an institution which bought and sold humans as property; every one of them is a slaving mass-murderer and it's what they deserved
instead they got to go home and pretend like nothing happened and poison the rest of the country from inside
eh, ehhhhhhhh. I mean yes relatively but Lincoln was absolutely a segregationist just like almost all abolitionists.
war is just another name for peasant massacre
And he accelerated the genocide of native Americans and the theft of their lands
Of course I'm also speaking from a reference point of not really liking the idea of capital punishment in general. And even though it is not uncommon throughout history to execute all or most members of an insurrection I don't actually think that's a historical precedent that's good to follow? Like maybe if it would have accomplished something but I don't think there is any post civil war scenario where the radical republicans don't fail. White americans, even those that opposed both slavery and the confederacy, did not care overmuch about the plight of freed slaves. That's why the radical republicans fell apart as a movement, after a decade the white voting populace in the north was simply generally unwilling to spend any more time or effort occupying the south to protect freedmen living there. They willingly and knowingly threw them to the wolves because ultimately it wasn't that important to them.
Oh, there would not be any roving death squads in my version
Every Confederate veteran would have been executed in their states capital city
And then tortured viciously for a couple of decades
If you were an Officer of any rank above Field Rank in the Confederate Army you definitely had it coming given the crimes committed under your command. And if you were any Field Rank Officer, you probably had it coming for the same reason. These people knowingly conducted a pretty brutal campaign of extremist violence and then afterwards a lot of em just... kept on doing it. If Nathan Bedford Forrest had been strung up from the nearest tree after the surrender, then the world would have been a much better place from the until now, and he was by no means alone.
Give it to A. Lee Martinez, he seems like he'd do a good job with the concept.
Well you'd want to gussy it up better than that, bring them in front of a big important building and denounce them at length and hang them I should think
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
All slave owners should have been executed too, and their lands, property and other wealth divided equally among their former slaves
Anyone over 18 in their family should have also been executed
Corruption of blood?
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
No, of deed
I'm not sure if you're trying to trap in some sort of logic trap like some godawful Ben Shapiro or Crowder fanboy, but I meant what I said
I meant every white adult who lived in a slave owning household
A 19 year old white woman in 1865 never had any power to free her father's slaves. Maybe her 21 year old brother could have done something, but that doesn't seem terribly likely to me. Marriage age for women was around 22 and for men around 26, during which time you could reasonably expect them to still be living at home.
Were they, in that, still benefiting from the fact that their family owned slaves? Absolutely. But they would not necessarily be slave owners themselves, and have little to no power to actually change things.
History.com tells us, "The 1860 census shows that in the states that would soon secede from the Union, an average of more than 32 percent of white families owned slaves. Some states had far more slave owners (46 percent of families in South Carolina, 49 percent in Mississippi) while some had far less (20 percent of families in Arkansas)."
That's a huge body-count for retribution justice.
In addition, would you just be targeting on the slave states that joined with the Confederacy? Because Maryland, Missouri, Delaware, and Kentucky all engaged in slavery while aligned with the Union during the Civil War.