HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Why is it we forced "...

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 02:45 PM

Why is it we forced "de-nazification" on Germany but not the equivalent on Confederates?

In some respects, Lincoln was too kind to Southern leaders, wanting a gentler, conciliatory reconstruction rather than bringing their leaders low and root out violent racists the way Ulysses S. Grant later did as president--but too late to have the public behind him.

As Dylan Roof lamented, the Klan and other racist groups never quite recovered from Grant's work in South Carolina.

It seems a little reminiscent of the Wall Street bailout. Wealthy Southern planters profited mightily from the labor of slaves, started a war that damaged the entire country, and Lincoln was most concerned about bringing those very enslavers and traitors back into the family.

That soft approach seems to have led to Jim Crow and the lingering injured pride of Southerners, whose heroes were allowed to keep their honor.

129 replies, 7523 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 129 replies Author Time Post
Reply Why is it we forced "de-nazification" on Germany but not the equivalent on Confederates? (Original post)
yurbud Jun 2015 OP
BumRushDaShow Jun 2015 #1
ncjustice80 Jun 2015 #58
Yupster Jun 2015 #67
GummyBearz Jun 2015 #68
RobinA Jun 2015 #102
ncjustice80 Jun 2015 #111
eShirl Jun 2015 #2
ann--- Jun 2015 #3
former9thward Jun 2015 #4
ann--- Jun 2015 #13
former9thward Jun 2015 #17
ann--- Jun 2015 #19
appalachiablue Jun 2015 #53
ann--- Jun 2015 #54
appalachiablue Jun 2015 #62
raccoon Jun 2015 #86
Yupster Jun 2015 #69
Yupster Jun 2015 #70
appalachiablue Jun 2015 #73
Yupster Jun 2015 #74
1939 Jun 2015 #113
Yupster Jun 2015 #114
1939 Jun 2015 #98
appalachiablue Jun 2015 #100
Yupster Jun 2015 #107
Yupster Jun 2015 #108
appalachiablue Jun 2015 #55
Art_from_Ark Jun 2015 #81
hedda_foil Jun 2015 #123
X_Digger Jun 2015 #38
ann--- Jun 2015 #43
uppityperson Jun 2015 #44
X_Digger Jun 2015 #48
ann--- Jun 2015 #56
appalachiablue Jun 2015 #66
X_Digger Jun 2015 #115
appalachiablue Jun 2015 #47
noiretextatique Jun 2015 #51
ann--- Jun 2015 #52
noiretextatique Jun 2015 #75
appalachiablue Jun 2015 #65
BumRushDaShow Jun 2015 #82
raccoon Jun 2015 #85
RandiFan1290 Jun 2015 #83
former9thward Jun 2015 #97
goldent Jun 2015 #7
yurbud Jun 2015 #23
ProgressiveEconomist Jun 2015 #5
malaise Jun 2015 #6
Rex Jun 2015 #9
malaise Jun 2015 #16
HooptieWagon Jun 2015 #77
appalachiablue Jun 2015 #49
Rex Jun 2015 #8
HereSince1628 Jun 2015 #14
ananda Jun 2015 #20
appalachiablue Jun 2015 #45
ananda Jun 2015 #46
appalachiablue Jun 2015 #50
1939 Jun 2015 #99
jberryhill Jun 2015 #31
davepc Jun 2015 #35
X_Digger Jun 2015 #40
kentuck Jun 2015 #10
PowerToThePeople Jun 2015 #11
aikoaiko Jun 2015 #12
yurbud Jun 2015 #26
hifiguy Jun 2015 #33
appalachiablue Jun 2015 #63
ncjustice80 Jun 2015 #59
aikoaiko Jun 2015 #95
ncjustice80 Jun 2015 #109
aikoaiko Jun 2015 #112
ncjustice80 Jun 2015 #118
Journeyman Jun 2015 #15
yurbud Jun 2015 #25
Igel Jun 2015 #28
Iggo Jun 2015 #18
yurbud Jun 2015 #117
Yupster Jun 2015 #120
yurbud Jun 2015 #124
Yupster Jun 2015 #129
moondust Jun 2015 #21
UTUSN Jun 2015 #22
treestar Jun 2015 #24
HFRN Jun 2015 #27
Igel Jun 2015 #29
appalachiablue Jun 2015 #71
craigmatic Jun 2015 #30
Yupster Jun 2015 #72
hifiguy Jun 2015 #32
appalachiablue Jun 2015 #127
1939 Jun 2015 #34
davepc Jun 2015 #36
WinkyDink Jun 2015 #37
Jim Lane Jun 2015 #39
ann--- Jun 2015 #57
yurbud Jun 2015 #61
Yupster Jun 2015 #78
ncjustice80 Jun 2015 #60
kentuck Jun 2015 #41
TheOther95Percent Jun 2015 #42
Skittles Jun 2015 #64
ladyVet Jun 2015 #121
Skittles Jun 2015 #128
merrily Jun 2015 #76
Yupster Jun 2015 #79
merrily Jun 2015 #80
Yupster Jun 2015 #90
merrily Jun 2015 #91
Yupster Jun 2015 #92
merrily Jun 2015 #93
appalachiablue Jun 2015 #104
Recursion Jun 2015 #84
CK_John Jun 2015 #87
LeftinOH Jun 2015 #88
Yupster Jun 2015 #96
yurbud Jun 2015 #103
oneshooter Jun 2015 #105
JonLP24 Jun 2015 #89
Warren Stupidity Jun 2015 #94
earthside Jun 2015 #101
Donald Ian Rankin Jun 2015 #106
riderinthestorm Jun 2015 #116
kentuck Jun 2015 #110
roamer65 Jun 2015 #119
ladyVet Jun 2015 #122
JCMach1 Jun 2015 #125
Orsino Jun 2015 #126

Response to yurbud (Original post)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 03:01 PM

1. About 70 years difference in time

And the Confederacy was mainly confined to their original territory where Nazi Germany had expanded hither and yon through Europe, burning and looting as they went along.

And as FYI, "Reconstruction" was particularly brutal on the South and there was a major recession ("Panic" during the period, although when Reconstruction ended, all hell broke loose for blacks.

Sometimes an apple is an apple. The nation needed the goods that could be produced in the warmer climes of that part of the country and it was critical to get those areas back in the fold. And alot of the issue had to do with "voting mattering", where the only voters at the time were male and they voted someone into office to neuter what had come about after the Civil War.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Reply #1)

Mon Jun 29, 2015, 12:01 AM

58. Evidently not brutal enough.

Why weren't confederate political leaders and military officers hanged? Why weren't plantations seized and turned over to former slaves? Why weren't plantation owners and confed soldiers stripped of voting rights? Why were they allowed to build massive memorials? Why didn't we let Sherman finish what he started?

Lioncoln choked, as did his successor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ncjustice80 (Reply #58)

Mon Jun 29, 2015, 01:11 AM

67. Lincoln was dead

before Jefferson Davis was even captured.

Davis and Lee were indicted for treason.

Lee just wanted to go to a peaceful retirement and ended up as President of Washington University.

Davis hired a high powered group of northern lawyers and demanded his trial. His argument was that secession was legal and legally done, and would the invading army kindly remove itself from his unhappy country so he could get back to the long business of rebuilding it.

US President Andrew Johnson was a personal and political enemy of Davis for a very long time. He would have loved to hang Jeff Davis from an old apple tree, but there was a problem. There was a very real chance that he would be found innocent. Then what?

Should the Yankee Army say oops and go home?

Better to never put Davis on trial. Eventually he was bailed out of jail by northern abolitionists and he was left indicted for the rest of his life touring the south and demanding his right to a "speedy" trial".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ncjustice80 (Reply #58)

Mon Jun 29, 2015, 01:12 AM

68. Why didn't we just nuke everyting south of the mason-dixie line?

 

If only we had nukes back then. Hell, we do have them now though. Start a white house petition

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ncjustice80 (Reply #58)

Mon Jun 29, 2015, 12:29 PM

102. On What Legal Basis

do you confiscate plantations and strip their owners of voting rights?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobinA (Reply #102)

Mon Jun 29, 2015, 07:00 PM

111. The fact that they are slave owners, and when you commit open rebellion and commit human rights

atrocities, you don't get to keep the fruits of the labor of freed slaves. Or do you think we should have let former Nazies keep their gold?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Original post)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 03:07 PM

2. We learned from mistakes?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Original post)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 03:23 PM

3. Agree

 

Segregation was "second-best" form of slavery the
south adopted and the mindset that blacks are inferior was cemented into
the region and passed down from generation to
generation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ann--- (Reply #3)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 03:30 PM

4. "the south adopted"?

All major northern cities were segregated. And still are to a large degree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #4)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 03:52 PM

13. No, they weren't

 

There were not "separate" schools, restrooms, water fountains,
seats a diner counters, etc, etc. And, they certainly aren't
that way now.

That was in the south and that is what the Civil Rights
Movement changed - even though the bigots there fought
so hard against it. The "blacks are inferior" mindset
was ingrained in most whites after the Emancipation
Proclamation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ann--- (Reply #13)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 04:11 PM

17. Chicago is the most segregated city in the U.S.

And has been for decades. Because of these housing patterns the schools are more or less segregated. It was in Chicago that MLK got hit in the head with a brick when he was leading a march against segregation in a white area.

On this muggy Friday afternoon, Martin Luther King Jr. stepped out of the car that had ferried him to Marquette Park on Chicago's Southwest Side to lead a march of about 700 people. The civil-rights leader and his supporters were in the white ethnic enclave to protest housing segregation. Thousands of jeering, taunting whites had gathered. The mood was ominous. One placard read: "King would look good with a knife in his back."

As King marched, someone hurled a stone. It struck King on the head. Stunned, he fell to one knee. He stayed on the ground for several seconds. As he rose, aides and bodyguards surrounded him to protect him from the rocks, bottles and firecrackers that rained down on the demonstrators. King was one of 30 people who were injured; the disturbance resulted in 40 arrests. He later explained why he put himself at risk: "I have to do this--to expose myself--to bring this hate into the open." He had done that before, but Chicago was different. "I have seen many demonstrations in the South, but I have never seen anything so hostile and so hateful as I've seen here today," he said.

King brought his protest movement north in 1966 to take on black urban problems, especially segregation. Chicago seemed like the perfect battleground.


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/chi-chicagodays-martinlutherking-story-story.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #17)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 04:19 PM

19. Not legally

 

And, that was then. This is now.
Five churches in the south were burned last week (in addition
to the horror in SC). It will never end down there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ann--- (Reply #19)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 11:43 PM

53. *The four days of the 1863 New York City Draft Riots, the largest civil insurrection

in US history took place July 12-16, 1863 at the time of the Battle of Gettysburg. Mobs of angry poor working class laborers and immigrants including Irish Catholics attacked and burned wealthy businesses, homes and targeted black people, 10 of whom were killed, two by lynching after being brutally beaten.
The mobs sacked and burned a Colored Orphanage Asylum with more than 250 children who had been evacuated by staff fortunately. Historians estimate that at least 115 people were killed during the 4 day riots and looting.

The call to conscript/draft soldiers for the military angered and caused resentment among the working class poor who would have to join the US Army to fight for the Union in the Civil War, unlike wealthy men who could pay substitutes to serve for them, and black men who were ineligible for the draft because they were not legally American citizens.
With Lincoln's Emancipation, soon after this horrific event black men were permitted to join the US military in federal US Colored Troops Regiments and they fought bravely for the North in combat in South Carolina, Florida, Tennessee, Virginia and other Union engagements.

~ History, Four Days of Fire, the New York City Draft Riots, July, 1863 ~

http://www.history.com/news/four-days-of-fire-the-new-york-city-draft-riots



See: "Gangs of New York" (2002) movie by Martin Scorsese with Leonardo Di Caprio, Daniel Day Lewis, fictional historical drama set in NYC in 1863 during the Civil War, and "Glory" (1989) movie based on the true story of the Civil War Union 54th Massachusetts black regiment with Matthew Broderick, Denzel Washington, Morgan Freeman.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to appalachiablue (Reply #53)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 11:47 PM

54. What does that have to do with it?

 

Trying to make the North look bad when THEY weren't the ones
who started the war or had legal slavery will NOT erase the
FACTS of the mindset of the majority of people in the south at the
time and long into the 60's up to today.

The FACT is slavery did not exist in the North and the did NOT
secede from the Union because they wanted to keep slavery as the
south did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ann--- (Reply #54)

Mon Jun 29, 2015, 12:19 AM

62. Legal slavery existed in all of the 13 original colonies, and after we became an independent country

separate from the British Empire. In the 1600s Native American and African slaves built Wall Street on Manhattan Island, NY (there is an OP about this on DU now). And for only one example, abolitionist and freedom fighter Sojourner Truth was born a slave in New York state and grew up speaking Dutch, not English since the family that owned her was from Holland. Her children were sold or lost and she did not gain freedom when she should from her master who delayed emancipation saying she had to work longer because her injured hand slowed her down. She was not freed until several years after the statue in NY state in the early 1800s.

I am presenting FACTS and the TRUTH; this is called historical accuracy even though you may not want to hear it. There is no attempt to 'make the North look bad' or to refute that the South started the war over the institution of slavery and seceded from the Union- the TRUTH. Racism against African Americans and Native Americans existed throughout North America and the US (and still does) and both groups were enslaved, with Native people often massacred or transported to Caribbean islands.

Read and learn more to understand the truth of US history, at least the basics before you get into discussions, please.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to appalachiablue (Reply #62)

Mon Jun 29, 2015, 08:44 AM

86. Thank you. Apparently that poster doesn't know much about US history. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ann--- (Reply #54)

Mon Jun 29, 2015, 01:14 AM

69. Quick note of interest

When Jefferson Davis took the oath of office to become President of the Confederacy, there were seven slave states in the new southern Confederacy and eight slave states in the USA, and US President Lincoln pledged not to disturb slavery in the states which had it.

After Fort Sumpter, four more states joined the Confederacy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to appalachiablue (Reply #53)

Mon Jun 29, 2015, 01:16 AM

70. I thought this was the south's best chance to win the war

If they won the battle of Gettysburg and then the draft riots started, could they have spread to other northern cities and led to a negotiated settlement?

Instead, victorious Yankee troops from Gettysburg marched to New York and put down the riots.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yupster (Reply #70)

Mon Jun 29, 2015, 01:34 AM

73. That's something I've never heard or considered. Even if the South had won Gettysburg, and thank

heaven they didn't how would the Army of NoVA have gone into NY, taken over and maintained control there for any length of time given the far greater manpower and industrial resources of the North I don't know. The South then was already experiencing supply shortages, Grant was taking Vicksburg that month in the West and Union forces were entrenched in No VA, coastal S. Carolina, New Orleans and SE VA around Fortress Monroe with freed contraband slaves by 1863 amassing behind Union lines. Interesting concept though-

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to appalachiablue (Reply #73)

Mon Jun 29, 2015, 02:11 AM

74. The south wasn't going to win the war by occupying northern cities

anymore than George Washington winning the revolution by occupying Liverpool.

The south needed to fight hard enough and long enough for the north to say the heck with it, it's not worth the price just like England did.

So, just to try a little alternative history, how's about after the first day of the battle which was a resounding Confederate victory, Lee follows Longstreet's advice and leaves the mauled I Corps and XI Corps reorganizing behind the II, III and XII Corps digging in on the hills.

He steps to the right catching the V and VI Corps and huge baggage trains on the way to Gettysburg strung out on the road and gets between the Army of the Potomac and Washington. This causes the rump AOP to chase after Lee where it is destroyed in a rash frontal attack everyone now remembers as Steinwehr's Charge.

This leaves Lee's army free to roam the countryside of Pennsylvania for the rest of the summer sending food, animals, machinery and money south and probably taking Harrisburg without much of a fight. Washington was probably not possible, but Baltimore had much southern sympathy and could have been taken, though not held. The CSA cavalry would be tearing up railroads all the way to Pittsburgh.

Meanwhile New York erupts in draft riots that are much bloodier and go on way longer than they actually did. The riots spread to Philadelphia, Boston, Chicago, Cincinnati and other northern cities. Northern troops are brought back from the west and the Virginia and N Carolina coasts to rebuild the AOP. The peace Democrats, led by Congressman Clement Valliandigham (The man without a country) is sent from Richmond back to Ohio, where he declares Ohio out of the war and calls its soldiers home. New York Governor Seymour also calls for peace from Albany. Copperheads start rallying for peace throughout the north and in the congressional elections of 1864, Lincoln loses his reelection, as well as congressional majorities and congress starts to withdraw funding for the war to move the new president-elect toward negotiations.

When President Davis presents himself to the French and English embassies in Richmond, he repeats his Inaugural quote, "All we ask is to be left alone."

How's that for some alternative history?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yupster (Reply #74)

Mon Jun 29, 2015, 07:24 PM

113. Road net at Gettysburg

The meeting engagement of the first day put the hurt on the US I and XI Corps and was done by four CS divisions (Heth, Pender, Rodes, and Early). Heth's Division was shattered a both Rode and Pender badly hurt. If Ewell had taken Cemetery Hill on the evening of the first day, Meade would have fallen back on his Pipe Creek plan.

The rest of Lee's army was stacked up on a narrow road leading back to Chambersburg in the following order (Johnson, Anderson, Hood, McLaws, and Pickett). To do a flanking movement on Meade, the rebs would have to go back to Chambersburg. After pushing I Corps off of McPherson's ridge, a very poor later route was opened which Longstreet followed on the second day to get ready for his attack. Longstreet wasn't in position until well afternoon on the second day because his two divisions of Hood and McLaws had to wait until Johnson and Anderson had cleared the pass at Greenwood to get on to the battlefield.

By the time Lee had eight divisions (all but Pickett) available at Gettysburg, V Corps was on the scene and VI Corps was coming up the Baltimore Pike (a long way around Meade's left flank for the Confederates).

Longstreet's concept had envisioned Ewell pulling back and marching to the south to extend the line around the flank past the Round Tops. With Ewell remaining in place, the rebs just had too little force to cover the front and extend to their right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1939 (Reply #113)

Mon Jun 29, 2015, 07:43 PM

114. No doubt Longstreet's plan was dangerous

if not reckless, especially without the cavalry there to see where you're going.

I disagree that there weren't enough men to flank and screen the front. Maybe better to say safely flank and defend the front. You don't need many men to hold off an army that isn't going to move forward, and once the AOP got onto Cemetery Hill, it wasn't going anywhere. The ANV could hear the digging so they had a pretty good idea they weren't going to be attacked.

Longstreet's plan might have caught the federals strung out on the road, or it could have ended with the Confederates strung out along their road. A very dangerous operation, but Lee had done that kind of thing before at C-ville though he knew the land and had his cavalry with him that time.

For Lee to win a decisive victory he had to fight on the move though. There was no decisive victory to be had slugging it out in the hills regardless of who ended up winning. Pennsylvania is just full of hills to fall back to. He had to move and defeat the AOP in detail. Day one was a good start. On day 2, leave the Yankees sitting behind their works on the hill while you march away. Bad for morale to spend all night digging and then find you're not facing anyone in the morning.

Anyway, in my Civil War games I win Gettysburg by luring the Yankees into attacking me in artillery kill zones. It wouldn't have worked with Meade. He would just sit there and outlast Lee until ANV ran out of supplies and had to go home.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to appalachiablue (Reply #73)

Mon Jun 29, 2015, 11:29 AM

98. If Gen Pickett had been successful in his charge,

Gen Meade would have retreated to the next ridge line. Gen Lee would have ridden to the top of Cemetery Ridge and been cheered by Pickett's victorious men. Gen Lee would then have been out of ammunition, out of supplies, and burdened with his wounded and prisoners. He would have then gone back to Virginia and Gen Grant would be there with a larger army in 1864..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1939 (Reply #98)

Mon Jun 29, 2015, 11:57 AM

100. Lee's forces were extremely depleted and in no way could have carried on into PA and NY even

if they'd won since they needed ample time, supplies and healing which the Union would have taken advantage of, you're right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1939 (Reply #98)

Mon Jun 29, 2015, 06:22 PM

107. You are correct

By day three of the battle (probably day 2) there was no decisive win for the Confederates available.

That's why my timeline has no day 2 or day 3 battles and no Pickett's charge.

My hypothetical (however realistic) has the Confederates winning with such minimal losses that Lee's army is able to stay in Pennsylvania for the summer. Instead of Pickett's charge, the AOP is defeated in Steinwehtr's charge, with three Union corps charging into an entrenched ANV and suffereing a fate worse than Fredricksburg.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1939 (Reply #98)

Mon Jun 29, 2015, 06:28 PM

108. You're right

Even if Pickett's charge was 100 % successful, your scenario would hold true.

That's why my scenario avoids day 2 and 3 of the battle and instead destroys 2 federal corps strung out on the road and three more in a senseless frontal attack, the reverse of Pickett's charge. That would have left Lee's army intact enough to remain in the north.

Now as to the chances of all that happening, hey it's a hypothetical. Stranger things have happened, esdpecially as Meade was just appointed as the campaign was already going on. Large mistakes were very possible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #17)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 11:48 PM

55. This is true, Dr. King called Chicago the most segregated city in the US.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to appalachiablue (Reply #55)

Mon Jun 29, 2015, 04:02 AM

81. It seems that Detroit has that dubious distinction now

And there are lots of other Northern cities on this list.

http://www.businessinsider.com/most-segregated-cities-census-maps-2013-4?op=1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #17)

Tue Jun 30, 2015, 12:57 PM

123. Absolutely. My grandfather was principal of an all black Chicago grammar school in the 1940's

Doolittle School in Bronzeville. I saw a school photo of the students and didn't understand why the kids will all black. My parents explained that people want to live near "their own kind," but that still didn't make a lot of sense to me at age 4. Of course, I was one of those maddening children who are continually asking "why" about everything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ann--- (Reply #13)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 06:52 PM

38. The fuck?!? Go pick up a book on the subject.

http://www.wbur.org/2014/09/05/boston-busing-anniversary

The sheer lack of knowledge is astounding.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #38)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 09:38 PM

43. I did pick up a book - in school

 

Of course, I wasn't taught in a school in the south. Guessing by
your vulgar language that's where you were educated?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ann--- (Reply #43)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 09:47 PM

44. I guess DU's admin were all educated in the south also?

Since they provide us with this smilie which stands for what the fuck, or shortened to "the fuck".

Seriously, that is your reply to being shown there was segregation and busing in the north? To attempt a south bashing insult? What the fuck?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ann--- (Reply #43)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 10:21 PM

48. Then go back and read it again. You obviously missed a few pages.

Here's a free clue: google 'redlining'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #48)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 11:48 PM

56. Here's another clue

 

Look at history after the Civil War and you will see which
part of the U.S. had the mindset that blacks were inferior.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ann--- (Reply #56)

Mon Jun 29, 2015, 01:09 AM

66. Your refusal to read, and learn the truth will not serve you well in life. And we're being nice

about it. You are disparaging people here by making false claims about where they were educated and displaying definite bias, poor attitude and a closed mind especially about things you don't know or don't want to hear even though they are facts. For your sake I hope you work on this, everyone can grow you know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ann--- (Reply #56)

Mon Jun 29, 2015, 07:48 PM

115. I don't have to look further than South Boston.

Fuck-a-duck, you must intentionally be ignoring the informative links other posters have provided.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ann--- (Reply #13)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 10:17 PM

47. Black people like Sammy Davis Jr. the entertainer & singer Dorothy Dandridge couldn't stay in

Last edited Tue Jun 30, 2015, 01:06 PM - Edit history (1)

rooms at Las Vegas hotels they performed in during the 1950s and 1960s. Jews and blacks were restricted from staying at hotels and barred from buying property in Conn. and NY, see "Gentleman's Agreement" film with Gregory Peck (1947) and "The Raisin in the Sun" (1961) film with Sidney Poitier about a black family trying to buy a home in a white Chicago neighborhood by Lorraine Hansberry. Banks, employers, businesses and homeowners groups made sure black and Jewish people were kept out.

Before that in 19th century Boston and NY it was NINA, No Irish Need Apply. While at Harvard as a student, one of JFK's professors called him a name I can't say here which is the term for Irish laborers who shoveled horse sh*t in the streets for a living. Henry Kissinger was the first Jew to be admitted to the Chevy Chase Country Club in MD in the 1970s. Whoopi Goldberg was shopping with her mother once at a famous NY department store and the clerk told her mother, 'you would be more comfortable shopping at another store'. In Switzerland a few years ago Oprah Winfrey was basically told she didn't belong in a high end boutique store.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ann--- (Reply #13)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 11:11 PM

51. jim crow was the law of the land, including the north, east and west

it was not just confined to the south.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to noiretextatique (Reply #51)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 11:32 PM

52. Who resisted the Civil Rights Movement?

 

THAT was my point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ann--- (Reply #52)

Mon Jun 29, 2015, 02:21 AM

75. my point is: there was resistance all over this country

the southern states surely made a big show of it, but it wasn't confined to the south.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to noiretextatique (Reply #51)

Mon Jun 29, 2015, 12:59 AM

65. True, ugly as it is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ann--- (Reply #13)

Mon Jun 29, 2015, 05:48 AM

82. "There were not "separate" schools, restrooms, water fountains, seats a diner counters"

Cotton Club in New York City

And the School District of Philadelphia (pre-Brown v Board of Ed.) -

In the early 20th century, Philadelphia had a higher percentage of blacks in its public schools than any other big city. And the proportion grew steadily - from 5.3 percent in 1910 to 47 percent in 1960.

In part, this was because the city has long housed two separate systems. In 1960, the heyday of urban Catholicism, 52 percent of white children went to parochial schools, but just 8 percent of black students did.

But the public schools were also segregated, because officials simply ignored the 1881 state law outlawing discrimination in education. In 1908, School Superintendent Martin Brumbaugh created several all-black elementary schools to employ black teachers, who were prohibited from teaching white students. Brumbaugh, who later became governor, had also concluded that black students were unfit to learn an academic curriculum.

"The difference between Philadelphia and the Southern states," said V.P. Franklin, a historian who wrote a book called The Education of Black Philadelphia, "is that since it was against the law . . . to segregate students, they segregated the teachers. So a form of de jure segregation was maintained."

http://articles.philly.com/2004-07-11/news/25371735_1_black-teachers-black-students-black-children


And at that time in the early '50s, my mother and her friends - all of whom had degrees in secondary education, were not allowed to teach at the secondary level - i.e, high schools, until AFTER Brown vs Board. This is something that my mother railed against for years. Some of her friends remained in elementary schools until retirement, although one bucked it and eventually became a (regional) District Superintendent before retirement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ann--- (Reply #13)

Mon Jun 29, 2015, 08:42 AM

85. Google "sundown towns." Plenty of them were in states north of the Mason-Dixon lines.


Also, in the mid 60's there was rioting in Boston because they didn't want the schools to be integrated.

Last time I checked, Boston was in Massachusetts.

There are plenty of other examples.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #4)

Mon Jun 29, 2015, 05:51 AM

83. You seem really upset

Get some bad news recently?







 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RandiFan1290 (Reply #83)

Mon Jun 29, 2015, 11:20 AM

97. Pointing out that there was segregation in the North is being upset?

Weird...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ann--- (Reply #3)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 03:39 PM

7. Yes, it was only necessary that the South treat blacks no worse than the North.

Segregation fit the bill.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ann--- (Reply #3)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 04:52 PM

23. sharecropping was arguably better for planters. Former slaves ended up OWING them money.

Essentially making the workers bear all the risk of the venture.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Original post)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 03:36 PM

5. Don't blame Lincoln. Blame Andrew Johnson, who did very little

during the crucial years just after the shooting stopped, and John Wilkes Booth, who assassinated Abraham Lincoln just when the freed slaves needed him most.

http://millercenter.org/president/grant/essays/biography/3

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Original post)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 03:38 PM

6. You know why

Because an essential feature of Western philosophy is racist to the core.
Atlantic slavery was the gas that fueled the engine of capitalism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malaise (Reply #6)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 03:43 PM

9. This country was build on the back of black slaves and the graves of Native Americans.

 

This is the history we SHOULD be teaching in school, that we got to where we are by exploiting others. Kind of like Wall Street does now with the entire planet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #9)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 04:01 PM

16. Not just Native American graves

They were used and abused before they were slaughtered

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #9)

Mon Jun 29, 2015, 03:30 AM

77. Wall St (built by slaves)...

 

...was a slave market.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malaise (Reply #6)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 10:28 PM

49. Indeed, the Atlantic Coast Slavocracy operated 300 years from New England to Brazil, making

many humans, Native Americans and Africans exist in misery and others dwell in comfort and leisure for generations on all sides of the Atlantic- the Americas, Caribbean, England and Europe. In Brazil slavery existed under Emperor Dom Pedro III until the 1860s or later.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Original post)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 03:41 PM

8. The world was a different place in 1863 and 1945.

 

Plus I've always thought comparing Nazis to the Confederates to be apples to oranges. BOTH were evil as hell, no doubt. However the Nazis did not want slaves nor did they depend on slaves for their economy. The Nazis wanted to eradicate the Jewish race along with anyone else they felt were deviants.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #8)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 03:53 PM

14. At what point did the forced labor begin? It reach 20% of the German labor force

I guess you are talking about that Nazi Germany that existed sometime before the war.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #8)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 04:25 PM

20. Actually the Nazis did want slaves.

Hitler actually wanted to conquer and take over eastern Europe and the Soviet Union.
He considered both Jews and the Slavs/Baltics to be inferior racially.

His real intent in the war was to completely take over the Soviet Union, to exterminate
and displace the Soviets to Siberia, and to enslave the rest of the population for the
Germans who were to live there.

The vast majority of fighting took place on the Eastern front and in the Soviet Union,
starting on June 22, 1941. Three-quarters of the German army and supplies were
deployed there, and they were actually in the Soviet Union for three years before
the Red army was finally able to push them out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ananda (Reply #20)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 09:57 PM

45. Correct. Slavs considered inferior were to be worked as a Nazi slave underclass like serfs in

Eastern Europe and Russia until 1860 or so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to appalachiablue (Reply #45)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 10:08 PM

46. Yes. And so the real Nazi part of WWII was fought in the Soviet Union.

Hitler never intended to take over western Europe because he considered
that population, except for the Jews, to also be racially superior.

He just wanted to keep the western European countries out of the eastern
arena and use their land for resources until he wiped out the Slavs and
secured the Soviet Union for the Germans.

That part of the war was extremely brutal because the Nazis went after
soldiers and civilians alike and used scorched earth tactics. Also, both
Hitler and Stalin were brutal autocrats driven by ideology which also
contributed to the carnage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ananda (Reply #46)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 10:49 PM

50. Eastern Europe and Russia were to be 'cleared out' for Lebensraum, space for white

Germanic people only, to live and thrive according to Nazi policies. Similarly the Nazi Lebensborn Program encouraged Nazi soldiers and especially racially superior SS officers to procreate with healthy, desirable North European women in Germany and occupied Nazi areas in Belgium, Holland, Norway and elsewhere to produce more pure babies and increase the 'super race' population for the Third Reich.

The illegitimate children of women who were raped or forced to have relations with Nazi soldiers during the war mostly grew up as outcasts in their mother's countries, and are now age 65 or older. One of the singers in the Swedish music group Abba is a lebensborn child.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to appalachiablue (Reply #45)

Mon Jun 29, 2015, 11:36 AM

99. The word "slave" comes from Slav NT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #8)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 06:10 PM

31. Um.. Significant slave labor

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #8)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 06:46 PM

35. The Nazis loved slavery and slave labor and made ample use of it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #8)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 07:01 PM

40. Umm.. yeah, slave labor in Nazi Germany.. it was a thing.

Geez, the historical inaccuracy in this thread is beginning to get unreal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_labour_under_German_rule_during_World_War_II

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Original post)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 03:43 PM

10. A lot of lives were lost on both sides of that war...

Sometimes, it was brother against brother.

It was not so easy as to snap your fingers and get it done.

Are we sure we would want to go thru that again?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Original post)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 03:49 PM

11. Why is it we prosecuted their war criminals but not our own?

 

Same reason I think.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Original post)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 03:49 PM

12. Germans weren't Americans. Yes, I know its obvious, but its relevant.


There would be and was no political fallout from hammering the former Nazis.

After the Civil War, the North still needed the South to conduct business which leads to politics as usual.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #12)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 05:04 PM

26. and we did quietly recycle some of the nastiest Nazis.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Reply #26)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 06:17 PM

33. Yep. Project Paperclip.

 

And many of them went straight into the intelligence agencies.

And then there were the rocket scientists

"I make zhure zey go up
Don't care vhere zey come down
Zat's not mein department"
Says Wernher von Braun

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hifiguy (Reply #33)

Mon Jun 29, 2015, 12:50 AM

63. For sure, between the laxness towards Nazis by Allies when Russia started becoming a threat,

Nazis who hid or worked their way to SA through ratlines, and the ones we brought over with Paperclip, more got out than should have for sure. The father of a guy I went to college with was in the German Army and came to New Mexico in '44-45, probably in some technical or science position. By the early 50s he'd gone back to Germany and worked with a major chemical co. allied with IG Farben, hmm. By 1953 he was employed in NJ at a large chemical co.

We never talked about this stuff in school b/c we were young, stupid and self centered. I learned info. about his father from a recent obit. My Dad was in the 7th Army, 1st Lieu. Artillery, Rhineland Campaign, awarded for combat, liberated Dachau and stayed in the Occupation in Bavaria which I didn't know until many years later. It's a shame.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #12)

Mon Jun 29, 2015, 12:06 AM

59. Confederates aren't Americans either.n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ncjustice80 (Reply #59)

Mon Jun 29, 2015, 10:34 AM

95. If you believe that then you legitimated their secession.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #95)

Mon Jun 29, 2015, 06:58 PM

109. Actually I just think they gave that up when they turned traitor.

We should have taken their land, given it to freed slaves, and banished them all back to Europe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ncjustice80 (Reply #109)

Mon Jun 29, 2015, 07:16 PM

112. They weren't from Europe so you couldn't send them back there.


And with that I'll bow out of this subthread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #112)

Mon Jun 29, 2015, 08:51 PM

118. Eh, it';s where they originallyt came from, and I wouldn't want to dump toxic trash in Mexico.

So nowhere else to exile them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Original post)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 03:56 PM

15. An excellent book by Jay Winik, "April 1865: The Month that Saved America" . . .

provides a provocative, insightful explanation of why the nation chose to pursue both the aims and purpose of the war and the path it eventually took towards reconciliation. It is a narrative far more nuanced and complicated than many perceive, and the challenges -- especially as we moved towards peace -- were fraught with innumerable dangers. Just a word from Robert E. Lee might have sent thousands of ex-soldiers into lawless vigilantism, organized guerrilla bands that could have terrorized the nation for decades. This was a very real concern for Lincoln and Grant.

The post-War situation, and Reconstruction as a whole, were not handled as well as they should have been. In part, Lincoln's untimely death threw much of it into chaos, and there were some aspects that never had hope of fruition. No reasonable person, white or black, expected a calm transition into a new social order. Were there approaches that could have been tried, which might have brought better result? Of course. Same as there were courses of action pursued that positively impacted the post-War nation. What is important in any consideration of these acts is to keep them all within the confines of the political and social realities of that time and era.

As to the question of "we" forcing de-Nazification on Germany, keep in mind that "we" were but one nation in a large alliance that sought many things from Germany at the close of the war. The Soviets, and the French and English, all wanted something different from what the US pursued. The ultimate peace that came about was both a compromise and a concession among the Four Powers.

Two books that may provide greater insight for the struggle toward victory and resolution among the Allies are Herbert Feis' Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin: The War they Waged and the Peace they Sought, and Reaching Judgment at Nuremburg, by Bradley F. Smith.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Journeyman (Reply #15)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 05:01 PM

25. I forgot one part of the World War II analogy: the Soviet Union

Our efforts to remake Japan and especially Germany were largely successful because if they gave us too much crap, we might have let the Soviets have their way with them.

We were the lesser of two evils.

There was no third party boogy man to scare former confederates into compliance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Reply #25)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 06:05 PM

28. And at the same time we needed them.

Because there was no reason that they couldn't go over to the Soviets or become neutral/socialist on their own. Greece.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Original post)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 04:16 PM

18. My straight up, walking in blind, off the top of my head answer is: To avoid Civil War II.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iggo (Reply #18)

Mon Jun 29, 2015, 08:35 PM

117. It would be tough to have Civil War II if the leaders of the South were in prison or dead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Reply #117)

Tue Jun 30, 2015, 12:30 AM

120. Jerfferson Davis wanted his trial

In fact he demanded it.

The government never gave him his trial. They just left him indicted for the rest of his life.

Pretty rotten. They accused him of a terrible crime. Then they never made any attempt to prove him guilty or never gave him a chance to prove his innocence. And now people 150 years later call him guilty without trial.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yupster (Reply #120)

Tue Jun 30, 2015, 01:06 PM

124. if the charge was treason, he was probably glad they didn't call his bluff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Reply #124)

Tue Jun 30, 2015, 08:00 PM

129. I don't think so

If you read some biographies of him you'll see he was all about being seen as a hard working man doing his duty to the best of his abilities.

I think the role of martyr would have come easy to him were he to lose, which was no guarantee.

No, he truly wanted his trial. He demanded it and was incensed that the government was denying his Constitutional right to an open and speedy trial.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Original post)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 04:39 PM

21. Unenforceable. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Original post)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 04:48 PM

22. R#5 & K n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Original post)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 04:58 PM

24. The First Amendment probably

We can't make laws that they can't speak or have the symbols.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Original post)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 05:43 PM

27. because anyone with any power always says 'do as i say'

 

'not as do'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Original post)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 06:09 PM

29. Because the official war was to keep the union.

Not to conquer, kill, and assimilate. That would say that the North's purpose was false, and it wasn't about preserving the union but conquest.

For the South slavery was economic as well as social. For the North, the South was important economically as well. Moral issues were worked in, but "ending slavery" was after "preserve the union". So when the states were reconquered, they had to be restored after a suitable amount of time as states, not as newly conquered territories.

But, yes, if you do not convince a people that they're defeated they are only short-term defeated. WWI was an example of this. The Sunnis in Iraq are another example.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Igel (Reply #29)

Mon Jun 29, 2015, 01:19 AM

71. +1 Well said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Original post)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 06:09 PM

30. The kkk did recover after Grant. they were huge by the 1910's and 20's. But to answer your question

 

The reason the north went soft on the south was because they got tired of the occupation first and the second but bigger reason was that the 1800's was a white supremacist century. Northerners may have wanted to end slavery but didn't see blacks as equals in much the same way the south did in fact many northerners saw them as a threat to their jobs. In many ways the the generation that fought the war didn't want to talk about it and all this hero worship of southerners actually occurred in the generation after so no there was very little need to De-confederatize right after the war because many people were already disillusioned with the confederacy and traumatized by the war.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to craigmatic (Reply #30)

Mon Jun 29, 2015, 01:31 AM

72. The new KKK of the 1920's

was as much a northern animal as a southern one. It was as much anti-immigrant as anti-black.

An interesting aside.

South Carolina was the last state to elect the president by the vote of the people. Their first election where electors were chosen by vote of the people was in 1868.

Who won South Carolina in 1868?

Ulysses Grant.

How in the world could that happen when pretty much every adult white man in the state served in the Confederate Army? Most white southerners lost the right to vote after the war. The voters were freedmen, scalawags (southern traitors like the hillbillies - Billy Yanks of the hills) and carpetbaggers (northerners who came down south to exploit the collapsed southern economy when Confederate currency became worthless, the transportation system was destroyed and farm animals killed off).

They got the right to vote back in 1877 due to the resolution of the Hayes - Tilden election dispute.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Original post)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 06:14 PM

32. I've often wondered the same thing.

 

But I think the example of the abject failure of Reconstruction is one of the reasons Germany and Japan were remade from the ground up after WW II.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hifiguy (Reply #32)

Tue Jun 30, 2015, 01:12 PM

127. Absolutely agree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Original post)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 06:32 PM

34. Jeff Davis wanted guerrilla warfare in 1865

John Breckenridge, Robert E. Lee, Joe Johnston, and Richard Taylor wanted to get as many men surrendered and paroled as possible because they knew the horrors of guerrilla warfare would fall mostly on the southern population.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1939 (Reply #34)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 06:48 PM

36. The horors of guerrilla warfare did fall on the sounterhn population post 1865.

Just it was a guerrilla war waged by the former confederates against the black population.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Original post)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 06:50 PM

37. Operation Paperclip.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Original post)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 07:00 PM

39. Would American blacks be better off today if a harsher policy had been followed?

 

You write, "That soft approach seems to have led to Jim Crow and the lingering injured pride of Southerners, whose heroes were allowed to keep their honor."

Let's envision a less "soft" approach. Suppose Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, and other top Confederate leaders had been executed or imprisoned for life. Would that have caused Southern loyalists to say that their heroes had not kept their honor, and that the correct response was therefore full racial equality? I don't think so. Making martyrs of those men would not have quenched Southern die-hard resistance; it would have fueled it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim Lane (Reply #39)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 11:49 PM

57. Can you imagine

 

what it would be like if the south had won? I hate to think
of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ann--- (Reply #57)

Mon Jun 29, 2015, 12:15 AM

61. they have won the peace.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ann--- (Reply #57)

Mon Jun 29, 2015, 03:42 AM

78. I imagine kind of like Canada and the US

Slavery eliminated kind of like Brazil, and about the same time frame.

What do you imagine?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim Lane (Reply #39)

Mon Jun 29, 2015, 12:10 AM

60. So you let loose Sherman, burn every Confed city to the ground, and push the traitors into the sea.

They lacked the superior valor and numbers of the Union- eventually they would run out of supplies and fighting men.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Original post)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 07:32 PM

41. It is assumed that most of the soldiers stationed in the South....

..would join the Union side if were to happen again?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Original post)

Sun Jun 28, 2015, 07:41 PM

42. We Need Truth and Reconciliation

We need truth and reconciliation on the civil war. We need to remove the symbols of racism and American apartheid and have a frank and open dialogue on what hundreds of years of slavery and oppression have gotten us to where we are now as a nation.

Many factors inhibited bringing about the social changes needed in the post-Civil War period. Lack of leadership on the national level didn't help and neither did widely held views about African Americans inferiority. If you look at the period before and after the Civil War, it seemed that there was little consensus on what to do with freed slaves. Even some abolitionists supported policies of repatriating African Americans to Africa. When Jim Crow laws began to sprout in the 1880s and 1890s, the courts could have stopped it, but did not.

De-nazification wasn't the panacea either. It didn't work because a large part of the population - for one reason or another - was left untouched There were many obstacles that complicated the process. Membership in the Nazi party comprised maybe 7% of the German population or roughly about 6 million members. The sheer number of Germans and Austrians subject to de-nazification was overwhelming to the various Allies. The bulk of Nazi party members lost voting or other privileges for 3 or fewer years.
Some who weren't classified major offenders spent less than a decade in jail. There's a reason it's taken 70 years for some people working in concentration camps to be brought to trial. The formerly West German criminal justice system required proof that a person killed specific people. That requirement was only lifted about a decade ago. "Former" nazis played a role in the West German criminal justice system and didn't make it easy to bring people to justice.

There were also tens of thousands of ordinary Germans engaged in the mass murder of European Jewry and others Nazi ideology deemed unacceptable. Daniel Goldhagen's book, Hitler's Willing Executioners, basically destroys the myth that Hitler and his SS henchmen murdered millions of people all on their own.

Sexism also played a role. Some female guards were apprehended and prosecuted, but the vast majority of women who were complicit in carrying out war crimes were never brought to justice because of their gender. You know because women are genetically incapable of committing atrocities. Insert eye roll. Insert eye roll There's an excellent treatment of female nazis by Wendy Lower called Hitler's Furies. You can read a synopsis here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2432620/Hitlers-Furies-The-Nazi-women-bit-evil-men.html



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Original post)

Mon Jun 29, 2015, 12:56 AM

64. Germany accepted that they lost

our south never has

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skittles (Reply #64)

Tue Jun 30, 2015, 12:13 PM

121. There we go with that broad brush again.

Inaccurate characterization of a large group of people for the win!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ladyVet (Reply #121)

Tue Jun 30, 2015, 07:15 PM

128. I've lived in the south for 40 years

I'll say whatever the fuck I want about the mentality down here

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Original post)

Mon Jun 29, 2015, 03:11 AM

76. The Civil War was fought "brother against brother" and the goal after the CW was to

Last edited Mon Jun 29, 2015, 03:56 AM - Edit history (1)

become one nation again, even though slaves had been freed. Healing was deemed a priority. Even Lee was to be treated respectfully as he surrendered.

Perhaps, in hindsight, a different balance could have been struck, including outlawing the symbols of sedition. However, Lincoln did what he thought necessary and in the best interests of the union.



Thank you to Yupster for pointing out an error this post originally contained about debts.

The Fourteenth Amendment voided certain debts. It says, in part:

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #76)

Mon Jun 29, 2015, 03:49 AM

79. The Fourteenth Amendment

specifically bans using government money to pay off any Confederate war debts.

Perhaps a Marshall Plan would have helped.

After the war the southern economy was prostrate.

The worthlessness of Confederate currency made average citizens paupers overnight. Add to this that 1/4 of all adult males dying in the war and another 1/4 wounded. The transportation system was purposely destroyed during the war and draft animals were killed off. With the end of slavery, the labor situation was a mystery.

Most farms were at risk of takeover due to no way to pay property taxes.

Then you add a predatory class of carpetbaggers preying on the people's poverty and you have a region that will be in trouble for a long time.

The government could have done more to rectify these shortcomings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yupster (Reply #79)

Mon Jun 29, 2015, 03:53 AM

80. I will edit my post, but

the 14th Amendment voided the debts, as well as prohibiting the US from paying them. Voiding the debts meant no one coulc sue successfully in a court of law to collect on the debt. Obviously, voiding a debt is a huge help to those who borrowed money for the purpose of fighting the Union, but penalizes the lenders and their successors and assigns.

It's as though the country was saying lenders and anyone who bought notes should have known than to lend money to help the rebel states fight the Union, but we are not going to hold that against the combatant States themselves.

Still, my original wording was wrong, so I did edit and gave you credit.

However, the debt issue was only an example in my post of the effort to heal. The latter was the point of my post, not the debt issue.

The question of the OP was why the USA had been less harsh after conquering the rebel states than it was after conquering the Nazis. My post was in response to that question.

However, in reply to you post, COULD the US have done more to help the South fiscally? I don't know. I don't even know the totality of what the US did. Was voiding debts the only thing? I doubt it. I don't know the totality of what was done SHOULD it have done more than it did? I don't know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #80)

Mon Jun 29, 2015, 10:01 AM

90. You're thinking of voiding the Confederate debt as an amelioration for the south

It was the opposite. It was supposed to be a tough lesson for anyone who loaned money to the Confederate government.

That was a double hit to southerners as overnight the money in their pockets, in the bank and even buried in the backyard already became worthless.

The Confederate government financed the war overwhelmingly with a war bond campaign. Citizens rich and poor traded in their gold and silver for Confederate war bonds. It was a patriotic exercise which went on in waves throughout the war. Many free Blacks took part too.

So in refusing to pay the bonds back, and even forbidding the southern states to pay their own people back, you again impoverished an already defeated and impoverished people.

At the Hampton Roads conference just a month or so before Appomattox, President Lincoln offered Vice-President Stevens a deal. If the CSA laid down its arms, an arrangement would be worked out to compensate slave owners for their lost property. That put the question in front of the CSA government. Were they fighting for independence or for their slaves. President Davis rejected the offer as he would not trade his country's independence for anything. He said it would violate his oath of office to defend and protect his nation if he agreed to its dissolution. Looking back, he should have taken the deal.

Could the US have done more to help the defeated south fiscally?

Yeah. What it did was systematically destroy the southern economy during the war, then made the currency worthless, made the people's financial investments worthless, made their greatest source of accumulated wealth (slaves) worthless and then allowed a class of vultures to come down south to buy up land from the widows and the disabled at pennies on the dollar from the people who couldn't pay their tax bills. Then they made fun of the south for being economically backward which still goes on today.

Yeah. There's a whole lot more the government could have done.

For one thing a huge change like ending slavery should have been shared by the whole nation, not just one class of people. Freed slaves should have been given either land or an income for a time at least until they could be educated. Slave owners should have been compensated for their economic losses. It was a huge change to the country's economy and the country should have shared the economic burden for the change. Lincoln understood this but once he was dead President Johnson and congress were more into punishment than help.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yupster (Reply #90)

Mon Jun 29, 2015, 10:04 AM

91. I'm thinking of what the 14th Amendment to which you directed my attention clearly says.

However, as I tried to indicate before, that was not my reason for posting, but only an incidental comment in my post.

If you want to debate this, I'm not your gal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #91)

Mon Jun 29, 2015, 10:20 AM

92. Sorry - just an old history teacher and textbook author

and I got carried away when I saw you thought a harsh punishment was a prize.

Sorry to lecture.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yupster (Reply #92)


Response to Yupster (Reply #90)

Mon Jun 29, 2015, 04:10 PM

104. You should consider putting the information in your posts here into a separate OP. There are many

facts and circumstances you cover which would definitely increase people's education on the complex subject no matter what their allegiances or biases are if they have any.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Original post)

Mon Jun 29, 2015, 07:48 AM

84. Radical reconstruction was pretty radical while it lasted -- MS had the first black Senator

Lincoln was preaching clemency until he was shot; when Johnson tried the things Lincoln had suggested he got impeached.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Original post)

Mon Jun 29, 2015, 08:47 AM

87. Mental masturbation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Original post)

Mon Jun 29, 2015, 09:11 AM

88. If Lincoln had been President until early 1869, as intended,

reconstruction might have been handled differently. Of course, there were no term limits then - so he could have run for Pres again in 1868.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeftinOH (Reply #88)

Mon Jun 29, 2015, 10:38 AM

96. I think you're right

When Lincoln was shot President Davis was with Joe Johnston's Army in North Carolina. His immediate reaction was that Lincoln's killing would be a disaster for the south as he was an old enemy of Vice President Johnson and had a very low opinion of his capabilities. An interesting part of the Civil War was how the leaders were often close friends. It gave generals real insight into their opponents.

For instance General Longstreet besides being a strong corps commander was valuable to General Lee as he was often able to guess how General Grant would react as they were best friends, Longstreet even standing as best man at Grant's wedding.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yupster (Reply #96)

Mon Jun 29, 2015, 03:18 PM

103. that is pretty cosy. Sort of like bin Laden being W's best man.

now they crop him out of all the photos.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Reply #103)

Mon Jun 29, 2015, 05:13 PM

105. Remember that all of these me served together for years in a very small army.

They started during the Mexican-American War under Winfield Scott. The army was small enough that they crossed paths many times after that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Original post)

Mon Jun 29, 2015, 09:54 AM

89. Germany was a very heavily paranoia situation

I think what there were split off sections of who controls who or in Berlin but it wasn't a fully independent Germany (which both West & Europe were scared shitless) which led to the wall which the US initially took as a sign that USSR probably doesn't want to invade West Berlin since they are building a wall. I'm far from a historian on this but do know there were as an incredible amount of paranoia on the US side which Russia or USSR was paranoid in return with the US flying around 24/7 with a nuke "just in case" and vice versa hence they started shoveling money into the fire (defense spending) but particularly an independent Germany or another Nazi-like Germany were what both sides of Europe was afraid. The official name of the wall "Anti-Fascist Protection Rampart"

Here is what I'm saying and I'm reluctant to research much of this due to bias but since I'm not well aware of the other side but only this side I take into account there was a lot of bias on this side & probably a lot of bias on the other side. A lot of bad idea supported by propaganda like the tearing down of forests, canals, large scale collective farms, etc.

===

There is a direct historical link running from: Hitler to Hearst, to Conquest, to Solzhenitsyn. In 1933 political change took place in Germany that were to leave their mark on world history for decades to come. On 30 January Hitler became prime minister and a new form of government, involving violence and disregard of the law, began to take shape. In order to consolidate their grip on power the Nazis called fresh elections for the 5th of March, using all propaganda means within their grasp to secure victory. A week before the elections, on 27 February, the Nazis set fire to parliament and accused the communists of being responsible. In the elections that followed, the Nazis secured 17.3 million votes and 288 deputies, about 48% of the electorate (in November they had secured 11.7 million votes and 196 deputies). Once the Communist Party was banned, the Nazis began to persecute the Social Democrats and the trade union movement, and the first concentration camps began to fill up with all those left-wing men and women. In the meantime, Hitler's power in parliament continued to grow, with the help of the right wing. On 24 March, Hitler caused a law to be passed by parliament which conferred on him absolute power to rule the country for 4 years without consulting parliament. From then on began the open persecution of the Jews, the first of whom began to enter the concentration camps where communists and left social-democrats were already being held. Hitler pressed ahead with his bid for absolute power, renouncing the 1918 international accords that had imposed restrictions on the arming and militarisation of Germany. Germany's re-armament took place at great speed. This was the situation in the international political arena when the myths concerning those dying in the Soviet Union began to be put together.

The Ukraine as a German Territory

At Hitler's side in the German leadership was Goebbels, the Minister of Propaganda, the man in charge of inculcating the Nazi dream into the German people. This was a dream of a racially pure people living in a Greater Germany, a country with broad lebensraum, a wide space in which to live. One part of this lebensraum, an area to the east of Germany which was, indeed, far larger than Germany itself, had yet to be conquered and incorporated into the German nation. In 1925, in Mein Kampf Hitler had already pointed to the Ukraine as an essential part of this German living space. The Ukraine and other regions of Eastern Europe needed to belong to the German nation so that they could be utilised in a 'proper' manner. According to Nazi propaganda, the Nazi sword would liberate this territory in order to make space for the German race. With German technology and German enterprise, the Ukraine would be transformed into an area producing cereals for Germany. But first the Germans had to liberate the Ukraine of its population of 'inferior beings' who, according to Nazi propaganda, would be put to work as a slave labour force in German homes, factories and fields - anywhere they were needed by the German economy.

The conquest of the Ukraine and other areas of the Soviet Union would necessitate war against the Soviet Union, and this war had to be prepared well in advance. To this end the Nazi propaganda ministry, headed by Goebbels, began a campaign around a supposed genocide committed by the Bolsheviks in the Ukraine, a dreadful period of catastrophic famine deliberately provoked by Stalin in order to force the peasantry to accept socialist policy. The purpose of the Nazi campaign was to prepare world public opinion for the 'liberation' of the Ukraine by German troops. Despite huge efforts and in spite of the fact that some of the German propaganda texts were published in the English press, the Nazi campaign around the supposed 'genocide' in the Ukraine was not very successful at the world level. It was clear that Hitler and Goebbels needed help in spreading their libellous rumours about the Soviet Union. That help they found in the USA.

http://www.northstarcompass.org/nsc9912/lies.htm

Forget the last sentence, I'm focusing on the anti-Nazi part of it and why the anti-fascist stuff & certainly the Ukraine part of it is true regardless of current events but it helps transition to my next point which was despite the efforts, there has been surging rise of the far right in places like France, Ukraine, and probably a lot of other European countries with neo-Nazis in particular. It is like there is more neo-Nazis there than here and I don't get it with all those people still falling for the propaganda after all these years and why do they like the idea of a police state. Swastikas graffited on the walls in France (not all over but they certainly are there). I picked a very controversial example but one I thought of when it came to Nazis is Ukraine, probably the most famous example is the Svobada Party but this is an example of the propaganda from the link.



“All of us can still clearly remember it was the Soviet Union who invaded Ukraine and Germany. This is exactly what happened and we need to prevent this happening again. Nobody has the right to rewrite the history and results about WWII.”
Yatsenyuk during a live interview for the German national television network ARD, 7 January 2015[111][112][113]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arseniy_Yatsenyuk

While it is true USSR invaded Germany from the East while they were invading France to the West

While it is true USSR invaded Germany in World War I from the East while they were invading France from the West in WWII the war in Europe started when Germany invaded Poland (same area the USSR invaded) this is where it gets messy

--
Adolf Hitler had declared his intention to invade the Soviet Union on 11 August 1939 to Carl Jacob Burckhardt, League of Nations Commissioner by saying, "Everything I undertake is directed against the Russians. If the West is too stupid and blind to grasp this, then I shall be compelled to come to an agreement with the Russians, beat the West and then after their defeat turn against the Soviet Union with all my forces. I need the Ukraine so that they can't starve us out, as happened in the last war.".[12]


I'm saying despite their efforts. The ideology is still very common and far too common as far as Europe is concerned. As to your question on the US -- The Radical Republicans were one of my all-time favorite parties. Do think Lincoln and everybody needed to take a stronger stance in reconstruction.

Radical Republicans

The Radical Republicans were a faction of American politicians within the Republican Party from about 1854 (before the American Civil War) until the end of Reconstruction in 1877. They called themselves "Radicals" and were opposed during the war by the Moderate Republicans (led by Abraham Lincoln), by the Conservative Republicans, and by the pro-slavery Democratic Party. After the war, the Radicals were opposed by self-styled "conservatives" (in the South) and "liberals" (in the North). Radicals strongly opposed slavery during the war and after the war distrusted ex-Confederates, demanding harsh policies for the former rebels, and emphasizing civil rights and voting rights for freedmen (recently freed slaves).[1]

During the war, Radical Republicans often opposed Lincoln in terms of selection of generals (especially his choice of Democrat George B. McClellan for top command) and his efforts to bring states back into the Union. The Radicals passed their own reconstruction plan through Congress in 1864, but Lincoln vetoed it and was putting his own policies in effect when he was assassinated in 1865.[2] Radicals pushed for the uncompensated abolition of slavery, while Lincoln wanted to pay slave owners who were loyal to the union. After the war, the Radicals demanded civil rights for freedmen, such as measures ensuring suffrage. They initiated the Reconstruction Acts, and limited political and voting rights for ex-Confederates. They bitterly fought President Andrew Johnson; they weakened his powers and attempted to remove him from office through impeachment (they were one vote short). The Radicals were vigorously opposed by the Democratic Party and often by moderate and Liberal Republicans as well.[3]

The Radical coalition

The term "radical" was in common use in the anti-slavery movement before the Civil War, referring not to abolitionists but to Northern politicians strongly opposed to the Slave Power.[4] Many, perhaps a majority, had been Whigs, such as William Seward, a leading presidential contender in 1860 and Lincoln's Secretary of State, Thaddeus Stevens of Pennsylvania, and Horace Greeley, editor of the New York Tribune, the leading radical newspaper. There was movement in both directions: some of the pre-war radicals (such as Seward) became more conservative during the war, while some prewar moderates became Radicals. Some wartime radicals had been conservative Democrats before the war, often taking proslavery positions. They included John A. Logan of Illinois, Edwin Stanton of Ohio, Benjamin Butler of Massachusetts, Ulysses S. Grant of Illinois, and Vice President Andrew Johnson (Johnson broke with the Radicals after he became president.)

In a pamphlet directed to black voters in 1867, the Union Republican Congressional Committee stated:

the word Radical as applied to political parties and politicians....means one who is in favor of going to the root of things; who is thoroughly in earnest; who desires that slavery should be abolished, that every disability connected therewith should be obliterated.[5]

The Radicals were never formally organized, and there was movement in and out of the group. Their most successful and systematic leader was Pennsylvania Congressman Thaddeus Stevens in the House of Representatives. The Democrats were strongly opposed to the Radicals, but they were generally a weak minority in politics until they took control of the House in the 1874 congressional elections. The moderate and conservative Republican factions usually opposed the radicals, but they were not well organized. Lincoln tried to build a multi-faction coalition, including radicals, conservatives, moderates, and War Democrats; while he was often opposed by the Radicals, he never ostracized them. Andrew Johnson was thought to be a Radical when he became president in 1865, but he soon became their leading opponent. Johnson, however, was so inept as a politician he was unable to form a cohesive support network. Finally in 1872, the Liberal Republicans, most of them ex-radicals, ran a presidential campaign, and won the support of the Democratic Party for their ticket. They argued that Grant and the Radicals were corrupt, and had imposed Reconstruction far too long on the South. They were overwhelmingly defeated and collapsed as a movement.

On issues not concerned with the Slave Power, the destruction of the Confederacy, the eradication of slavery and the rights of the Freedmen, Radicals took positions all over the political map. For example Radicals who had once been Whigs generally supported high tariffs, and ex-Democrats generally opposed them. Some men were for hard money and no inflation, and others were for soft money and inflation. The argument, common in the 1930s, that the radicals were primarily motivated by a desire to selfishly promote Northeastern business interests, has seldom been argued by historians for a half-century.[6] On foreign policy issues, the Radicals and moderates generally did not take distinctive positions.[7]

Wartime
Henry Jarvis Raymond

After the 1860 elections, moderate Republicans dominated the Congress. Radical Republicans were often critical of Lincoln, who they believed was too slow in freeing slaves and supporting their legal equality. Lincoln put all factions in his cabinet, including Radicals like Salmon P. Chase (Secretary of the Treasury), whom he later appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, James Speed (Attorney General) and Edwin M. Stanton (Secretary of War). Lincoln appointed many Radical Republicans, such as journalist James Shepherd Pike, to key diplomatic positions. Angry with Lincoln, in 1864 some Radicals briefly formed a political party called the Radical Democracy Party[8] with John C. Frémont as their candidate for president, until Frémont withdrew.

An important Republican opponent of the Radical Republicans was Henry Jarvis Raymond. Raymond was both editor of the New York Times and also a chairman of the Republican National Committee. In Congress the most influential Radical Republicans were U.S. Senator Charles Sumner and U.S. Representative Thaddeus Stevens. They led the call for a war that would end slavery.[9]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_Republican

I agree with you 100% on the US, just wanted to comment on "de-nazification" which exactly hasn't worked hence the two comments.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Original post)

Mon Jun 29, 2015, 10:25 AM

94. We tried but after Grant the anti-reconstruction coalition won and undid those efforts.

 

Read up on 'the nadir" a part of american history that just about none of us were taught in school.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nadir_of_American_race_relations

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Original post)

Mon Jun 29, 2015, 12:29 PM

101. The immense tragedy of slavery and the Civil War ...

... cannot be overstated.

'Reconstruction' or 'de-nazification' was handle very poorly -- one wonders how differently it would have been administered had Lincoln lived.

This notion that the right-wing is putting out there that the Civil War is over, we ended slavery, aren't we 'exceptional' ... so let the 'south' celebrate its heritage is just a big fat propaganda lie.

I live in a suburb of Denver, we've got some yahoo around here who loves to drive around with a giant Confederate battle flag stuck flying out of the bed of his pick-up truck. Hey, this ain't the south!

I am not for censorship; I oppose any sanitization of history; I'm not for tearing down statues or digging up graves or putting Gone With the Wind on a never-watch list; I'm not for 'editing' Tom Sawyer; etc.

But, for heaven's sake, let's forthrightly confront and deal with our nation's horrible history of slavery and segregation; let's call the ideology of the Confederate States of America for what it was: white racial superiority masquerading under the rubric of 'states rights'.

A moral 'reconstruction' is still in order and I would argue it should be soft ... meaning that we challenge and confront the reactionaries, the bigots and the 'exceptionalists' with the best of liberalism and progressivism -- facts, reason, truth and our commons sisterhood and brotherhood.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Original post)

Mon Jun 29, 2015, 05:14 PM

106. The analogy with the catastrophe of de-Baathisation in Iraq is just as sound. N.T.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Donald Ian Rankin (Reply #106)

Mon Jun 29, 2015, 07:54 PM

116. +1 nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Original post)

Mon Jun 29, 2015, 06:59 PM

110. You can almost smell the vapors...

...in a room full of volatiles...

Anybody got a match??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Original post)

Mon Jun 29, 2015, 09:50 PM

119. Some change did happen but it was lost in the "Corrupt Bargain" of 1877.

Rutherfraud Hayes wanted the presidency so badly over Tilden that he made a bargain with racist Southern Democrats to end Reconstruction. With their support in Congress, Hayes got what he wanted at the expense of many blacks in the South.

People don't realize it, but Reconstruction is the reason the 14th amendment exists. In the late 1860's, the states of the old Confederacy refused to ratify it. Their state governments were literally put under federal control and they were then told to ratify it or they would lose all representation in Congress. Good move on the part of the Union states, IMHO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Original post)

Tue Jun 30, 2015, 12:19 PM

122. Amazing how many nasty people in one thread can get put on ignore. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Original post)

Tue Jun 30, 2015, 01:10 PM

125. The need (by the Republicans to elect Hayes in 1876) ended 'radical'

reconstruction...

Even when it was in-effect... Grant and Johnson were largely ineffectual and weak Presidents.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Original post)

Tue Jun 30, 2015, 01:12 PM

126. Projection.

Their attempts at genocide were somehow worse than ours.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread