General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsGIVEN HISTORY OF THE U.S, WE ARE LUCKY TO BE IN EXISTENCE AS A TOTAL COUNTRY, 50 STATES
TOGETHER AS ONE NATION, AND ALSO ONE OF THE LEADING COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD, .CELEBRATING "'MEMORIAL DAY"
Ocelot II
(115,683 posts)Marius25
(3,213 posts)We shouldn't have allowed the confederate states to rejoin the union, and we're paying the price for it. It's too hard to govern massive countries with such polar opposite beliefs.
That's a very interesting point of view for philosophical rumination. I had never considered that before.
brush
(53,776 posts)Last edited Mon May 29, 2023, 03:03 PM - Edit history (1)
and the 'lost cause' bullshit myth would've never sprung up, reconstruction should've continued, former enslaved granted their proomised 40 acres and mule, then the history of the nation after the war would've been much different.
The hangings would've taught the traitors the lesson they never got. We were much to forgiving to the traitors.
Polybius
(15,398 posts)If anything that would have made them more right-wing.
brush
(53,776 posts)in Germany after WWll...hangings, executions, suicides and imprisonments. We didn't and we're still dealing with that legacy. Lost cause my ass.
In German now nazism is againt the law and now they're allies. We handled way too leniently. Now they're still foisting that lost cause bullsnit even now. And we put the former enslaved thru the jim crow decades, hanging, lynchings, share cropping, just another form of slavery. And racism to this very day.
You're way wrong. Can believe someone on DU is advocating coddling of traitors.
You hang traitors.
ITAL
(636 posts)It would have been a guerrilla war for years. Maybe generations.
In many ways we helped Germany rebuild more after WWII way more than we helped the South after the Civil War. So given the region had been devastated, the South had a lot of hostility that wouldn't have gone away if Jefferson Davis had been executed.
And once folks were captured, rather than being executed right away, the government decided they couldn't execute people without due process. And it was greatly feared that CSA officials would not be found guilty of treason by a jury, since it was heavily debated whether secession WAS treason (the first region of the country to ever float the idea of secession was actually the North during the War of 1812).
And getting found not guilty would be even worse than not putting them on trial at all.
brush
(53,776 posts)would've controlled your imagined guerrilla war...as if the beaten, demoralized, broke and disbanded army with leaders hanged or jailed would somehow fight a guerrilla war. You're joking, right? Weak.
No one knows what would've happened if Lincoln wasn't killed a week after Lee and the south surrendered. I doubt he would've stopped reconstruction like Johnson who furthered the coddling of the south.
More just treatment of the former enslaved probably would've ensued, and Lincoln in the Gettysburg address signaled charity towards the south.
You mention the US helped rebuild Germany. We certainly did but the Nuremberg Trials also happened. The perpetrators of the war were held to account.
The same should've happened after the Civil War. It didn't and we're still feeling that legacy and failure.
See this link and see how we're still dealing our failure.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10143080456
Guerilla wars don't need a lot to go on. An insurgency just needs some weapons and hit and run tactics to make life miserable. Look at Afghanistan.
If Lee had told everyone to go into the hills, they don't need a lot of "leadership" to continue the struggle.
What Lincoln would have done is up for debate. He did want to be generous to the South...which included not executing folks. You may not believe this but when he was first assassinated the Radical Republicans actually expected Johnson to be tougher on the South than Lincoln and thought it may have been a blessing in disguise than Lincoln was gone. He wanted Reconstruction to be as painless as possible, so a plan along Johnson's lines isn't as far fetched as people want to believe. I remember my history professor in college (who was very pro-Lincoln btw) argued the the best thing to happen to Lincoln's presidency was to die at the height of his powers right as the war ended. His point was that Reconstruction was probably always going to have issues and could have ended in disaster in about a thousand different ways, but as a martyr everyone would always assume Lincoln would have figured it out.
And once again, as stated earlier, there was a big, big worry that they Confederates would be found not guilty in a secession trial. This is the letter sent to President Johnson by Richard Henry Dana, Jr., who was sort of a Special Prosecutor that was to try any Confederates if the government went in that direction (Jefferson Davis was in jail for quite awhile and nearly died waiting trial, which obviously never happened). Dana wrote to Johnson indicating he had great misgivings about going to trial.
Letter was as follows
Sir,
While preparing with yourself, before you assumed your present post, to perform the honorable duty the President had assigned to us, of conducting the trial of Jefferson Davis, you know how much my mind was moved, from the first, by doubts of the expediency of trying him at all. The reasons which prevented my presenting those doubts no longer exist, and they have so ripened into conviction that I feel it my duty to lay them before you in form, as you now hold a post of official responsibly for the proceeding.
After the most serious reflection, I cannot see any good reason why the Government should make a question whether the late civil war was treason, and whether Jefferson Davis took any part in it, and submit those questions to the decision of a petit jury of the vicinage of Richmond at _nisi prius_ [the first court to try Davis].
As the Constitution in terms settles the fact that our republic is a state against which treason may be committed, the only constitutional question attending the late war was whether a levying of war against the United States which would otherwise be treason, is relieved of that character by the fact that it took the form of secession from the Union by state authority. In other words the legal issue was, whether secession by a State is a right, making an act legal and obligatory upon the nation which would otherwise have been treason.
This issue I suppose to have been settled by the action of every department of the Government, by the action of the people itself, and by those events which are definitive in the affairs of men.
The Supreme Court in the Prize Causes held, by happily a unanimous opinion, that acts of the States, whether secession ordinances, or in whatever form cast, could not be brought into the cases, as justifications for the war, and had no legal effect on the character of the war, or on the political status of territory or persons or property, and that the line of enemy's territory was a question of fact, depending upon the line of bayonets of an actual war. The rule in the Prize Causes has been steadily followed in the Supreme Court since, and in the Circuit Courts, without an intimation of a doubt. That the law making and executive departments have treated this secession and war as treason, is matter of history, as well as is the action of the people in the highest sanction of war.
It cannot be doubted that the Circuit Court at the trial will instruct the jury, in conformity with these decisions, that the late attempt to establish and sustain by war an independent empire within the United States was treason. The only question of fact submitted to the Jury will be whether Jefferson Davis took any part in the war. As it is one of the great facts of history that he was its head, civil and military, why should we desire to make a question of it and refer its decision to a jury, with power to find in the negative or affirmative, or to disagree? It is not an appropriate question for the decision of a jury; certainly it is not a fact which a Government should, without great cause, give a jury a chance to ignore.
We know that these indictments are to be tried in what was for five years enemy's territory, which is not yet restored to the exercise of all its political functions, and where the fires are not extinct. We know that it only requires one dissentient juror to defeat the Government and give Jefferson Davis and his favorers a triumph. Now, is not such a result one which we must include in our calculation of possibilities? Whatever modes may be legally adopted to draw a jury, or to purge it, and whatever the influence of the court or of counsel, we know that a favorer of treason may get upon the jury. But that is not necessary. A fear of personal violence or social ostracism may be enough to induce one man to withhold his assent from the verdict, especially as be need not come forward personally, nor give a reason, even in the jury-room.
This possible result would be most humiliating to the Government and people of this country, and none the less so from the fact that it would be absurd. The Government would be stopped in its judicial course because it could neither assume nor judicially determine that Jefferson Davis took part in the late civil war. Such a result would also bring into doubt the adequacy of our penal system to deal with such cases as this.
If it were important to secure a verdict as a means of punishing the defendant, the question would present itself differently. But it would be beneath the dignity of the Government and of the issue, to inflict upon him a minor punishment; and, as to a sentence of death, I am sure that, after this lapse of time and after all that has occurred in the interval, the people of the United States would not desire to see it enforced.
In fine, after the fullest consideration, it seems to me that, by pursuing the trial, the Government can get only a re-affirmation by a Circuit Court at _nisi prius_ of a rule of public law settled for this country in every way in which such a matter can be settled, only giving to a jury drawn from the region of the rebellion a chance to disregard the law when announced. It gives that jury a like opportunity to ignore the fact that Jefferson Davis took any part in the late civil war. And one man upon the jury can secure these results. The risks of such absurd and discreditable issues of a great state trial are assumed for the sake of a verdict which, if obtained, will settle nothing in law or national practice not now settled, and nothing in fact not now history, while no judgment rendered thereon do we think will be ever executed.
Besides these reasons, and perhaps because of them, I think that the public interest in the trial has ceased among the most earnest and loyal citizens.
If your views and those of the President should be in favor of proceeding with the trial, I am confident that I can do my duty as counsel, to the utmost of my ability and with all zeal. For my doubts are not what the verdict ought to be. On the contrary, I should feel all the more strongly, if the trial is begun, the importance of a victory to the Government, and the necessity of putting forth all powers and using all lawful means to secure it. Still, I feel it my duty to say that if the President should judge otherwise, my position in the cause is at his disposal.
brush
(53,776 posts)Lee was free, the rest of the generals were free. Why didn't your guerilla wars happened?
And I suppose you were against the Nuremberg Trials too?
What are we on, DU or some right wing site favoring lost cause bullshit site?
Because the Confederate Generals didn't think they'd be executed. Some of Lee's Lieutenant's actually argued he should go with the guerilla war option, but he said no. It seems that he was confident Grant wouldn't hang the officers. The only one who really tried to run and keep the war going (likely because he feared execution) was Davis.
Not sure why it's Lost Cause or right wing bullshit. A smaller version of the guerilla war is what basically led to Reconstruction being ended in 1877. Northern voters just got sick of stationing the military in the South after nearly 12 full years.
brush
(53,776 posts)Such bullshit. Go back to your right wing site.
ITAL
(636 posts)The Soviets wanted show trials followed by executions. The British wanted summary executions with no trial. The United States fought for some sort of legitimate trial that could actually convince the German population the officials deserved death, rather than just revenge.
What Dana (who I referenced earlier) said was he wasn't at all sure he could win a legitimate trial in the 1860s. And a show trial wouldn't help with hearts and minds at all.
brush
(53,776 posts)Go somewhere else with your right wing talking points.
I'm saying the a lot of officials in the 1860s didn't think they could win. Jefferson Davis was literally the only one they even thought they might be able to try in court (he was basically the the only one who spent any time in a prison after the war), and even there they were not sold.
I'm being perfectly reasonable in trying to explain the actual history at the time, you're telling me what your emotions tell you should have happened. I apologize you don't see it that way, but I haven't been trolling, aggressive, or in any way inflammatory. I'm not lobbing insults in your direction the way you are me. If you want to keep the debate send me a PM, but I think we've taken up too much of the board as it is.
former9thward
(32,001 posts)Most went about their lives after the war. And neither Germany or the U.S. pursued the thousands of Nazis who left for Argentina and Paraguay after the war.
former9thward
(32,001 posts)India knew that when after independence it kicked out what became Pakistan and Bangladesh. Even after that it is still too big and diverse to be governed by a conventional democracy.
brush
(53,776 posts)be a split nation and maybe even worse.
Just an alternate path would have been followed.
The northern states would have joined with the provinces of Canada into a political union.
The United Provinces of Canada.
🇨🇦
With climate change, I think possibility of this happening has actually increased.
Michigan, New York and New England have WAY more in common with Ontario and the Maritime provinces than they do Texas or Alabama.
brush
(53,776 posts)the Union had such poor generals, the south would've been a separate nation.
If the north joined with Canada, what are you saying the south would've done? Explain.
roamer65
(36,745 posts)Contained to the 11 traitor states, minus some of their territory due to losses in border skirmishes with the United Provinces of Canada.
The South was devastated even into 1864. Inflation was rampant. In November 1864, a holiday turkey cost $155 CSA and it only got worse from there.
brush
(53,776 posts)Who cares if it was a banana republic? Fuck the traitors.
roamer65
(36,745 posts)Probably Emperor Jefferson Davis in a dress.
brush
(53,776 posts)What else would they have been? You say a banana republic. Ok, who cares. Some sort of separate nation.
Again, fuck the traitors.
stopdiggin
(11,302 posts)even with the history and sacrifice ..
A surprising amount of 'cavalier' attitude (even casual dismissal) of the importance of the union.
(It might be off topic - but is it really such a grand idea for every little piss-pot municipality - to have their 'own' independence, freedoms, and government? We just 'town hall meeting' our way to liberty and justice for all?)
roamer65
(36,745 posts)It didnt.
We wont either.
Empires come and go, rise and fall.
stopdiggin
(11,302 posts)not really all that important after all ...
"this too shall pass .. "
roamer65
(36,745 posts)But its all about the legacy we leave. The legacy Im seeing certain states now try to leave is one that I certainly dont want to be identified with, do you?
stopdiggin
(11,302 posts)of leaving the union - is a shitty one - then, and now. (both for the 'rebels', and the union)
Hope that clears things up.
roamer65
(36,745 posts)
and then the SCOTUS with the court case involving the 10th Amendment.
There is no secession formula in the Constitution, nor is it forbidden under the Constitution, therefore it would be an instant SCOTUS case via the 10th Amendment.
and dont quote me some old case from 1869, folks. This court has thrown stare decisis into the trash with its overturn of Roe v Wade.
FakeNoose
(32,634 posts)... and they all worked together and agreed on their purpose. They accomplished their goal. We have inherited the benefits of that original, heroic group.
Now a few assholes are finding ways to tear it all down so that a small group can steal from the rest of us.
roamer65
(36,745 posts)The genocide of the Native American peoples.
Im not trying to chide you. Just recognizing that everything has a price.
FakeNoose
(32,634 posts)Many Americans have paid the ultimate price, including those who were here before we arrived.
BannonsLiver
(16,370 posts)1. were not one nation. Were Balkanized and full of people who hate each other over politics and culture issues. Thats never going away.
2. Lucky? Eh. Not so sure about that.
Stuart G
(38,421 posts)reference is that a great % of the population is full of hate.....What % is that?...................
The United States now has 300 million people. How many are ........."Full of Hate"? .....Your reference to ..."Full of Hate"'
is not clear. When one reads your post, a person can think 50% are ...."Full of Hate"...or 35% are "Full of Hate".
With 300 million people there will be lots of hate people, and lots of people that love the United States.
My grandparents came to the United States in the very early 1900s. I grew up in Chicago, and was educated
in the public school system. I went to a state university, and worked as a public school teacher of history.
I am one who loves the United States of America, not a hate person : "full of hate."
And also, I am lucky to be alive. ....at my age...a lot more than 60..........Yes,.........a whole lot more!!!!!
BannonsLiver
(16,370 posts)You dont think or havent noticed people hate each other over politics and cultural issues? Or is that because you personally havent experienced that it doesnt exist? Sorry, just trying to decipher the polyannish twaddle. 🤷♂️