Why weren't Jeff Davis and Robert E. Lee executed as traitors?

[karpool]

After the Civil War. During Reconstruction anybody who showed allegiance to the Confederacy should have been put down. A world of hurt for anybody who showed southern white pride. If that had happened our country would not be in the mess it is in today. One whole party, the Republican Party, is a direct descendent of the racist southern secessionists. And we have to actually entertain these idiots and pretend that their ideas are measured and some what reasonable? As Clay Davis would say, "Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeit".

[sharp_stick]

1. The simple reason

was that Lincoln wanted to reunite the States as quickly and bloodlessly as possible. There were a lot of people that wanted to start executing Southern officials as soon as the war ended but Lincoln, the cabinet and very importantly U. S. Grant didn't think that was the way to end it.

[digonswine]

2. You might want to think that out a bit more.

[onenote]

3. So you are advocating mass executions of thousands

of people who "showed allegiance to the Confederacy"? Really?

[Fumesucker]

4. The South got treated more like Germany after WWI than West Germany after WWII

Reconstruction was horribly botched by the federal government, it wasn't the war that cemented "damnyankee" as one word in Southern minds, it was Reconstruction that did that.

Just like the terrible job done on Germany after WWI lead to WWII less than thirty years later so the real failure of Reconstruction has lead to the many problems with the South today.

[KoKo]

10. Agree...but, this seems...an odd post for a Newbie to start out with.

Just saying.....

[FarPoint]

20. Well....it appears to be flaimbait.

OP is no where in the thread.....

[KoKo]

24. Perhaps MIRT needs to be notified. It did seem odd. n/t

[FarPoint]

29. Agreed.......

They can make a safe determination.....

Hit -N- Run threads that are so outside the perimeter of reasonable discussion or inquiry send up a flag to me.

[DeltaLitProf]

70. You're subscribing to a pro-Confederate myth

Reconstruction policies actually worked very well in educating and protecting African-Americans. When former Confederates were allowed the vote and swung elections in favor of their candidates, the black vote began to be suppressed by terroristic means and the Northern politicians, now in the mid-1870s, lost interest in Reconstruction ideals and capitulated to Democratic demands for the withdrawal of Federal troops from Southern states.

Read Eric Foner's Reconstruction for more.

[Fumesucker]

74. The US Army didn't allow interracial marriages until 1948

Which is an example of the racism still inherent in the North even after 1865.

The South was stomped flat after the war, rebuilding it correctly was the responsibility of the winners, it was a responsibility the North failed in large measure because of their own lingering racism.

The attitudes developed over hundreds of years of history and five years of total war weren't going to be erased in less than a decade.

[Hippo_Tron]

76. There were two parts to the post WWII West Germany treatment, though...

Yes there was the Marshall Plan and great economic assistance compared to the reparations they were forced to pay after World War I.

But the Allies removed all remnants of the Nazi regime, the newly formed state of Israel punished their leaders for war crimes, and the occupying forces made German citizens to tour concentration camps. Mentally speaking, we beat them into submitting to the fact that they had done terrible things by allowing the Nazis to come to power.

With the South, we kind of just let them go back to doing what they were doing before, aside from owning slaves.

[KoKo]

5. You just joined DU and you are Worked Up about CIVIL WAR?

HUH?

What a strange early post.

Whatever...welcome to "DU"but this is the 21st Century. There are History Sites on the Web that deal with the Civil War (War of Aggression) that you might find interesting too, though.

[MH1]

72. Heh ... PPR ... "Returning Disruptor"

I'm shocked, shocked I tell ya.

[arcane1]

6. Because the USA is better than that?

[former9thward]

8. So you would like to see 90% of the white people in the South executed.

In addition you may want to read a history book. Whatever you say about the ideology of present day Republicans they are not a "direct descendent of the racist southern secessionists." The party is a direct descendent of the Republican party that Lincoln was the head of.

[brush]

17. He does have a point about descendency

The Dixiecrats, descendants of the rebellious Southerners, left the Democratic Party in 1964 over LBJ and his passing of the civil rights acts and seating of the black Freedom Democratic Party at the '64 Dem convention. Most ended up in the repug party and brought their racism with them, which is what we see so often in today's repug party.

[Hekate]

40. Inviting Dixiecrats into the GOP was part of Nixon's Southern Strategy, iirc. nt

[brush]

51. Yes! nt

[JohLast]

9. "One whole party, the Republican Party, is a direct descendent of the racist southern secessionists.

You know Lincoln was a republican, right?

[exboyfil]

15. Democrats were the racists in the South

before and after the Civil War. The Republicans were on the side of punishing the South until 1876 when they sold the African Americans down the river for the White House. T. Roosevelt was much more progressive on Civil Rights than his successor, the Democratic Woodrow Wilson. Only in the 1980s with the introduction of the Republican southern strategy did Republicans begin to resemble the old Democratic South. This was in response to the breaking of the Southern racist block by the actions in part of Lyndon Johnson. The Republicans were not a factor in the South before the 1980s.

[Agnosticsherbet]

54. Between Wilson and Truman, the Parties changed...

Culminating with Democrats allowing blacks into the party in '48 and the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and with Strom Thurmond leaving to run as a white supremacist.

The change was completed between NIXON AND REAGAN. Nixon's Southern Strategy was aimed at attracting Racist Southerners, and Reagan's "Reagan Democrats" were conservative Democrats and Southerners who finished changing the South from Democrat to Republican.

The Parties changing was an historical process.

[exboyfil]

62. I challenge the contention that there was much change in

the Southern Democratic block until Johnson - that is what made it so astounding. You can see this in the strong third party challenges by Thurmond and Wallace. Eventually that wing coalesced as part of the modern Republican party. Roosevelt and to a lesser extent Truman were a northern phenonomen. Stevenson was lukewarm at best for Civil Rights, and he was a northern Democrat (barely a Democrat like Eisenhower was barely a Republican). The map flips between 1960 and 1964 for the deep south.

[Agnosticsherbet]

75. You will find that after Truman allowed blacks in the part in 48 that the south began its long

defection.

Johnson, with the passage of the Civil Rights act of 64, said that he'd lost the south for a generation. But the changes in the parties go back to that period between Wilson and Truman. The Change, particularly in the South, did not finish until Reagan. But even under Clinton there was a strong Dixiecrat wing, of which Zell Miller was a staunch supporter. Both Clinton and Gore were Dixiecrats, though both of them more socially liberal than most of the others.

The Northeast was social liberal Republicans. There were still more than a few of those even under Bush. The prominence Tea-party, which is nothing more than the old Racist John Birch Society in modern cloth, succeeded in forcing the social liberals out. They are now Democrats, and many of them are blue dogs, fiscally conservative social liberals.

The thing I take away from this is the knowledge that the great parties aren't static. They change over time. Revered Republicans of the past such as Eisenhower and even Reagan would not be elected in the current Republican Party. Eisenhower would be left of most current Democrats, including President Obama and Bill Clinton. Go back a bit father to Teddy Roosevelt, and he is left of everyone but Kucinich.

Just as the parties have changed in the past, they will continue to change in the future.

[JoePhilly]

45. Some terms to know ...

1) Dixie-crat.

2) The Southern Strategy.

Lincoln's GOP and today's GOP, share very little in common.

[brush]

52. Read the posts above yours.

Todays repug party is the party of Lincoln in name only.

[Lex]

59. My friend, please look up "Southern Strategy" on Wikipedia. You need a history lesson.

It might become clear to you then why Republicans are now the party of the racist mofos.

[Ken Burch]

63. He wouldn't be today, though.

I doubt they'd welcome hipster-bearded sexually ambiguous agnostics who challenge property rights...especially if they're 203 years old.

[Boomerproud]

73. LOL

The best reply on the thread!

[exboyfil]

11. You would have been fighting a guerilla war of occupation the

rest of the 19th century. That was an option considered and pushed by some of the Southern politicians. If St. Lee went to the gallows, you could expect massive resistance. Davis was confined for a few years, and Lee lost Arlington.

Santa Anna adopted this policy at Goliad, and it did not work out too well for him. Goliad and executions at Alamo served as the rallying cry for the rest of the war.

I am not even sure that the Union officers would have supported this policy. Many of them fought together in the Mexican American world and were at the academy together.

[freshwest]

22. +1

[NYC_SKP]

12. Please read up on this war and on these individuals. (nt)

[brush]

13. You are so spot on

And I'm thinking we'll be regretting no jail terms for the banksters that ruined our economy and then were allowed to rob the treasury for years to come as well. I think there's a term for it: "White male priviledge.

[FarPoint]

31. What????????????

You didn not say that!

[brush]

32. What would you call it?

Last edited Sun Jan 13, 2013, 03:50 AM - Edit history (2)

Lee and Davis were traitors but weren't shot. No banksters went to jail. Why was there so much leniency when obvious crimes were committed? It might not be what most people think but it seems they were let off because they were in priviledged positions, plus they were all white and male. I mean why would traitors not be executed? That what treason gets you.

[Mrs. Overall]

43. But the OP goes beyond leadership, stating all in sympathy with the Confederacy should be killed or

"put down".

Is that "spot on"?

[brush]

56. Back in the day, not now

Last edited Sun Jan 13, 2013, 03:51 AM - Edit history (1)

And in that situation it would be the leaders who would be executed not the thousands of foot solders and sympathizers. And if that had happened there probably wouldn't be any pride of being descendents of the Confederacy now. There would be no sympathizers because people would most likely not want to be associated with the Confederates because they would have gone down in history as traitors whose leaders were ignominiously hung on a gallows or shot by a firing squad. You sure don't hear of anyone bragging about being a descendent of Benedict Arnold do you?

[Jackpine Radical]

14. Dat DU is a Krazeeeee place filled wif nutcases

dat wish all Southron Wites was ded an think da Repubbicans started da Sibbil War wen dey seseeded fum da Onion. Lokkit wot I jus found on dat site.

[annabanana]

16. heh . . . .

you may be onto sumpin

[Hekate]

42. Jackpine, it does have that certain aroma, doesn't it? nt

[Le Taz Hot]

66. It just reeks of it,

doesn't it?

[El Supremo]

18. You are only the second person to go on my ignore list.

[H2O Man]

19. Legalize Lonnie Anderson's hair.

[ellisonz]

21. Free Willy!

[dorkulon]

23. Ever heard of a martyr, my friend?

Executing leaders only ensures that they live forever.

[billh58]

25. Anybody else

smell that?...

[hrmjustin]

26. I am not a historian, but they may have escaped death because they wanted to reconcile the

nation.

[aikoaiko]

27. They all went to school together and worked together for years prior to CW.

I joking, kind of.

[Motown_Johnny]

28. So the entire Confederate Army, and their families, should have been executed?

How about all the Germans and Japanese after WWII?

Or every Native American during the "Indian Wars"?

[Mrs. Overall]

30. "A world of hurt for anybody who showed southern white pride." This kinda gives you away...

Along with wanting to "put down" everyone who had sympathy with the Confederacy.

I don't think many Democrats are going to jump on the "kill them all!" bandwagon, but I guess you are probably figuring that out by reading these posts.

[tsuki]

33. Wonder how much karpool was paid for that post? nt

[kestrel91316]

34. They formally surrendered and then behaved as gentlemen.

And they were treated as gentlemen. It was a more civilized time.

Now we'd have to execute any leaders or imprison them for life. They would only continue to make trouble otherwise.

[JI7]

35. Sounds like some Troll trying to start something

[Wva 4-20mamp]

36. Lee's Punishment

Because Lincoln knew that more people side with their state than with their country. Why do you think the military trains their boots that they are fighting for their home town and mama not the USA. I read once that the most people can only feel empathy for 50 people at one time. I do know that Arlington National Cemetery is the Lee family plantation and that his punishment was the civil forfeiture of said land.

[Hekate]

46. "The military trains their boots they are fighting for home town & mama not the USA"--What??

Just a question for the DU veterans (of which there are many) -- does this ring true or false to you? Because it sure sounds odd to me.

[Mrs. Overall]

48. "people can only feel empathy for 50 people at one time" --wtf? Seriously???

I can name countless tragedies in which more than 50 people died or suffered and I and most individuals I know, felt boundless empathy and compassion for them.

Oh my god. I better stop writing or I'm going to say something that will bring this post to a jury decision.

[geckosfeet]

37. Errrm. No. Check the history and policies of both parties in the 1800's.

Go ahead. Crack a book. Or look it up online.

Just a heads up - you you are way off base.

As to why the opposing army was not executed - they surrendered unconditionally. But they did die a long long time ago so don't worry about them coming to bugger you in your sleep.

[Turbineguy]

38. Because of this:

"....With malice toward none, with charity for all, ...let us strive on to finish the work we are in, ...to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations...."

Abraham Lincoln, Second Inaugural Address, Mar. 4, 1865

Lincoln was nothing like modern-day wingnuts who seem to be itching for the chance to execute other Americans.

[Wva 4-20mamp]

39. Vampire's

And Lincoln was to busy slaying vampires

[Recursion]

41. Cool story, bro

[spanone]

44. if we had killed two people all would be fine..bwahahahahahaaaa

that is too damned funny.

[Honeycombe8]

47. So you think we should've executed the whole German population after WWII? And all Japanese?

And everyone in Italy?

My, my. You've been playing too much Mortal Kombat.

[graham4anything]

49. For the same reason Janet Reno could not have just got Koresh outside of Waco

because it was not the leader of Waco that was the problem, it was the gun stockpiling rightwing extremists inside the compound that wanted to overthrow the government
The leader was the only one who could control them

and sure enough, the others burned themselves down at the end, after taking out some government agents.

Janet was very patient.

and had President Lincoln not been killed( BY A GUNNUT IN A THEATRE, with a political agenda, like so many of them have), he had wonderful ideas to move forward but of course the gun and a bullet cut him down.

Took 100 years to FDR to move forward again
then another 50 til LBJ signed the acts
then another 50 til the great President Obama came

[RZM]

50. What a bunch of bullshit

History is something people know. That can't be your angle if you're clueless about it. I almost feel a little bad for you

[liberal N proud]

53. Because there was already enough killing

No one else needed to die and the best ones to help reunite the country were those who were seen by the south as leaders.

It was to heal a nation, not further divide it.

[nolabear]

55. Oh Honey, really? I think you're on the wrong site. Hatemonger Underground is down the hall.

Lord have mercy...

[unblock]

57. MANY families fought on both sides.

this happened during the revolution as well, but even more so during the civil war.

many families, whether through divided loyalties or conscious choice, had family members on both sides. i know some people who can trace their lineage back to that time. many families specifically sent one son to fight for one side and the other to fight for the other side so that at least one would be on the winning side.

after 4 long years of family members fighting family members, people just wanted the killing to be over and go back to their families. the north just wanted to figure out how to exploit the south and the south just wanted to figure out how to exploit blacks without the cherished institution of slavery.

[Hekate]

58. Hmmm. 55 replies and OP karpool is nowhere to be seen...

... although another rather odd contributor has appeared.

What can that mean?

[Lex]

60. ....

[Botany]

61. 100% troll

The republican party was the good party around the time of the civil war .....
it was no until the 1950s, 60s, and 70s that republicans became the party
of racism ..... Nixon's southern strategy

[Ken Burch]

64. Well, they DID at least turn Lee's front yard into Arlington National Cemetary.

Burying the nation's war dead on what had been your estate for the rest of eternity is pretty heavy-duty payback.

[Hissyspit]

65. Shut up.

[Le Taz Hot]

67. Literally, LOL!

I can't stop.

That one got me, HS.

[cali]

68. sheesh is right. sheesh to your gross ignorance, hon.

[stultusporcos]

69. They should have been and the failure to do so is why that certain parts of America

are the way they are today.

We are still paying the price in this day and age for Lincoln’s failure to do the job right the first time.

[cali]

77. what a stinking pile of reactionary aliberal dog shit, dearie.

[muriel_volestrangler]

71. Why weren't Jeff Davis and Robert E. Lee PPR'd as disruptors?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=299412&sub=trans

[Codeine]

78. Because the death penalty for opinions is going a bit over the line. nt

[Ken Burch]

79. It was the dadburn ACLU...dagnab it!

[billh58]

80. Enjoy your pizza...

"Returning disruptor."