ShermanPosting

hideshow 14 child comments

parent

[–] chaotic_ugly@lemmy.zip 0 points 8 months ago* (13 children)

"America is a political cesspool because the Confederacy wasn't punished properly."

This point simply doesn't make any sense. What is proper punishment? What punishment did the Union fail to enact that would have saved modern America?

Yes, the South's, who had the greatest incentive to continue slavery. But, the economy was truly transcontinental. One economy. The North benefitted immensely from slavery.

Do you think the North would opt for a punishment that would amount to falling on their own sword? Could such a punishment be politically tenable?

what.

Human beings "other". It's key to understanding our species. So long as hardship can befall a people, those people will find a scapegoat. To this day, Blacks are only 14% of the population.

Capitilism + Humans = Political Cesspool

Punishing the Confederacy, even by wiping them off the face of the planet, would not have changed what America was to become, except by delaying global American hegemony.

hideshow 13 child comments

parent

[–] stickly@lemmy.world 6 points 8 months ago*

This comment reads like someone skimmed some tweets about the Civil War and thinks they're an expert on all of 18-19th century US history

parent

[–] PugJesus@piefed.social [S] 4 points 8 months ago (11 children)

This point simply doesn’t make any sense. What is proper punishment? What punishment did the Union fail to enact that would have saved modern America?

The destruction of the pseudo-aristocracy of the South which perpetuated the plantation system; in slavery before the war, and in sharecropping after the war?

The suppression of Confederates and Lost Cause Mythology, which created an intense countercultural current against the post-war notion of racial reconciliation?

The entire anti-democratic system of the post-Reconstruction South which created deep divides in the proletariat at a time when labor radicalism was gained strength?

Yes, the South’s, who had the greatest incentive to continue slavery. But, the economy was truly transcontinental. One economy. The North benefitted immensely from slavery.

Would you like to remind me which economy struggled during the Civil War, and which economy continued largely as normal?

Do you think the North would opt for a punishment that would amount to falling on they’re own sword? Could such a punishment be politically tenable?

In what way would it be falling on their own sword? The South's cotton production was already castrated by Sherman's March and the fact that Britain had invested in growing cotton in Egypt and India in response to the US Civil War.

Human beings “other”. It’s key to understanding our species. So long as hardship can befall a people, those people will find a scapegoat. To this day, Blacks are only 14% of the population.

Capitilism + Humans = Political Cesspool

I've got some really bad news for you about non-capitalist systems.

hideshow 11 child comments

parent

[–] chaotic_ugly@lemmy.zip 0 points 8 months ago (10 children)

And you believe all of those things were not just possible but could have been sustained? Do you think they could have accomplished all of that without turning the Reconstruction into a generational occupation of the South? And you think it would have been economically viable and that the necessary long-term voter commitment would be there?

hideshow 10 child comments

parent

[–] PugJesus@piefed.social [S] 3 points 8 months ago (9 children)

And you believe all of those things were not just possible but could have been sustained?

Yes, absolutely.

Do you think they could have accomplished all of that without turning the Reconstruction into a generational occupation of the South?

... what the fuck do you think Reconstruction was?

And you think it would have been economically viable

Yes, absolutely. Sharecropping is not actually great for the economy, and the South would remain economically marginal to the USA for decades afterwards.

and that the necessary long-term voter commitment would be there?

Yes. The only fucking reason Reconstruction ended in the first fucking place was a deal between the Democrats and Republicans over a disputed election.

"Hannibal Hamlin is VP when Lincoln is assassinated" is potentially all it would fucking take to extend Reconstruction another 5-10 years, and with greater results in the first 11 years too, for that matter.

hideshow 9 child comments

parent

[–] chaotic_ugly@lemmy.zip -1 points 8 months ago* (8 children)

First, fuckity fuck fuck fucking fucking fuck cool guys say fuck a lot fucker fuck.

Yes, absolutely.

I guess I'll just take your word for it. I just don't see how it would have been possible with almost the complete absence of a strong and expansive federal government combined with a general commitment on both sides to state's rights, and the overall war-weariness of Northern voters.

… what the fuck do you think Reconstruction was?

A 10-year military enforcement that was flagging out there towards the end. You'd need to 20 - 30+ years minimum and the creation of a permanent federal admin presence to get to a point where the South's new way of life could normalize. I could talk about this some more but apparently we just say "yes" around here. My fault for not realizing this was a meme community before I posted. For fun, look into what it took to "reconstruct" Germany and Japan post-WW2.

Yes, absolutely. Sharecropping is not actually great for the economy, and the South would remain economically marginal to the USA for decades afterwards.

No generational occupation, no long-lasting reform. As wasn't discussed, because what good is conversation, the economics, politics, general belief in state's rights, Northerner's exhausted of war, the fact that the 15th Amendment was supported mainly as strategy for securing Republican political dominance in the South, that Northerners didn't generally favor social integration, all meant what would have been nice to have happened just didn't.

Yes. The only fucking reason Reconstruction ended in the first fucking place was a deal between the Democrats and Republicans over a disputed election.

This is you confusing what ought to be with what could have been. My question was very simple: given the the circumstances, what more could have be done? Certainly something, but enough to make modern American less of a "cesspool". Hindsight is fucking 20 fucking fucker 20, fucker fucking fuck shit.

hideshow 8 child comments

parent

[–] PugJesus@piefed.social [S] 3 points 8 months ago (2 children)

50 pages into Race and Reunion and it seriously already calls into question your claims about both sides having a commitment to states' rights and notes the Republican ideological commitment in the aftermath of the US Civil War as strongly in favor of social integration, dedication to freedmen's rights, an appetite for vengeance upon a defeated South, and the strong political hand of the Republicans other than Andrew Johnson's inconvenient ass sitting in the presidency.

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] chaotic_ugly@lemmy.zip 1 point 8 months ago* (1 child)

Those first few years, the Johnson years, were hopeful times. Circa 1870, things are clearly different. IIRC, middle of the book. It's been awhile.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] PugJesus@piefed.social [S] 3 points 8 months ago

But considering one of my core proposals for the divergence of Reconstruction was Hannibal Hamlin as Lincoln's VP, that reinforces the point I was making from the very start.

parent

[–] PugJesus@piefed.social [S] 2 points 8 months ago* (4 children)

I guess I’ll just take your word for it. I just don’t see how it would have been possible with almost the complete absence of a strong and expansive federal government combined with a general commitment on both sides to state’s rights, and the overall war-weariness of Northern voters.

The idea that either side's partisans had a serious commitment to "state's rights", or that Reconstruction triggered 'war-weariness' in Northern voters is absurd.

No occupation, no long-lasting reform.

Good thing that Reconstruction literally was an occupation then?

For fun, look into what it took to “reconstruct” Germany and Japan post-WW2.

3 years of serious denazification, 7 of restricted anti-Nazi sentiment, and 13 of anti-Nazi cultural pressure?

This is you confusing what ought to be with what could have been.

"The 1876 election HAD to be disputed!"

Okay, buddy.

hideshow 4 child comments

parent

[–] chaotic_ugly@lemmy.zip 0 points 8 months ago (3 children)

You should read this: https://www.hup.harvard.edu/books/9780674013667

And, also this: https://www.hup.harvard.edu/books/9780674008199

And then look into how elections changed after The Panic of 1873, but also as a result of public outcry over a half-dozen or so scandals during Grant's presidency (Credit Mobilier, The Whiskey Ring, The Gold Ring, to name a few). "Weary" is an understatement. In reality, a majority of people in the North were done with the whole thing by '75. They wanted to focus on problems at home and were tired of supporting the South.

And I'm not your buddy, pal.