3 ms·

You should wonder why did ACW did not degenerate into slaughterhouse like Russian or Chinese civil wars.. A lot of people now dream about such a thing, they ha

by tlear 7y ago

You should wonder why did ACW did not degenerate into slaughterhouse like Russian or Chinese civil wars.. A lot of people now dream about such a thing, they have not perhaps read what that actually means. US let South get away with this crap because it WAS beaten and peace and unity of the country was worth a lot more. The “traitors” things is somewhat silly, since even men who served with them Before the war did not consider them such. Most considered their state to supersede the union that is all. If Virginia did not secede Lee would have been happily helping Union put down rest of the states. Lincoln movie has a great moment at the end of president talking to Grant, they were wise men and luckily for all involved did not turn the aftermath of the war into bloodbath that would span decades and turn US into police state.

0815test 7y ago
> US let South get away with this crap because it WAS beaten and peace and unity of the country was worth a lot more. To be clear about it, the US let the South get away with plenty of terrible things that they shouldn't have. But yes, the monuments thing that people are objecting to nowadays was a lot milder and more positive in its goals than many people assume. The reality is that at some point, by all appearances, many people in the North did not so much care about the plight of the formerly-enslaved; they mostly wanted to punish the South, no matter how counterproductive this would have been. The 'Radical Reconstruction' was in no small part a result of this attitude, and had the North objected to the Confederate monuments, this too would've been seen as such. It's interesting to note that Lincoln himself did not make this mistake; it may be fair to blame the comparative chaos following his assassination by a radical slavery supporter (which, it should be noted, was immediately condemned in no uncertain terms by the saner voices in the Southern states, including Lee himself) for the sudden change in attitudes. At the very least, the fact that Andrew Johnson, a Democrat, was thereafter made President (leaving him free to sabotage even that remarkably mild approach to Reconstruction, and to antagonize Congress over the issue to a perhaps unprecedented extent) did not exactly help matters.

by tlear 7y ago

0815test 7y ago

> US let South get away with this crap because it WAS beaten and peace and unity of the country was worth a lot more. To be clear about it, the US let the South get away with plenty of terrible things that they shouldn't have. But yes, the monuments thing that people are objecting to nowadays was a lot milder and more positive in its goals than many people assume. The reality is that at some point, by all appearances, many people in the North did not so much care about the plight of the formerly-enslaved; they mostly wanted to punish the South, no matter how counterproductive this would have been. The 'Radical Reconstruction' was in no small part a result of this attitude, and had the North objected to the Confederate monuments, this too would've been seen as such. It's interesting to note that Lincoln himself did not make this mistake; it may be fair to blame the comparative chaos following his assassination by a radical slavery supporter (which, it should be noted, was immediately condemned in no uncertain terms by the saner voices in the Southern states, including Lee himself) for the sudden change in attitudes. At the very least, the fact that Andrew Johnson, a Democrat, was thereafter made President (leaving him free to sabotage even that remarkably mild approach to Reconstruction, and to antagonize Congress over the issue to a perhaps unprecedented extent) did not exactly help matters.