Rethinking Sherman's March: A Kindler, Gentler Total War?

[Eddie Teach]

Hey Raz, does your newfound interest in alt history mean you'll give Newt's books a shot? 

Your proposal has the disadvantages that it would have caused massive rioting - in the North. Followed by Democrats sweeping the elections and reversing it.

[Berkut]

It is interesting to hear the theory that if only the South had been treated more harshly, things would have turned out better.

[derspiess]

It is interesting to hear the theory that if only the South had been treated more harshly, things would have turned out better.

Yeah.

[Admiral Yi]

I think it is one of the most glorious chapters in American history that we fought a bloody civil war and were able to reconcile afterwards.

[LaCroix]

Or you could require that slave holder reimburse all slaves back pay for their service. 

Not that I'm a lawyer, but I fail to see how this would have worked.

Slavery was legal until 1863.  Only on 1st January of this year was it made officially illegal.
The war ended in 1865.  So that's 2 year back pay.  I doubt very much that black citizens of the North earn the exact same pay as the white male at the time, so you'd have to make it, realistically, at half the pay of a white worker at the time.

i think this would be deemed unconstitutional.

the emancipation proclamation had no actual authority as congress did not enact a law during the war to affirm the proclamation. the 13th amendment ended slavery in the US, and the states ratified the 13th after the war ended. if the government imposed back-pay on slave owners for those two years, i think the slave owners could have successfully appealed to SCOTUS. there wouldn't be back-pay owed to ex-slaves for when they were still technically property.

nobody challenged the emancipation proclamation IRL, probably because the emancipation proclamation only encouraged more of what the US already practiced -- seizing and freeing slaves from rebellious states. rather than leave it to the discretion of the US occupying forces, the proclamation essentially ordered those forces to seize/free all slaves in their area.

[Razgovory]

I think it is one of the most glorious chapters in American history that we fought a bloody civil war and were able to reconcile afterwards.

Yeah, if you ain't black.  Otherwise it's not so good.

[garbon]

I think it is one of the most glorious chapters in American history that we fought a bloody civil war and were able to reconcile afterwards.

Yeah, if you ain't black.  Otherwise it's not so good.

Yeah...

[Razgovory]

Or you could require that slave holder reimburse all slaves back pay for their service. 

Not that I'm a lawyer, but I fail to see how this would have worked.

Slavery was legal until 1863.  Only on 1st January of this year was it made officially illegal.
The war ended in 1865.  So that's 2 year back pay.  I doubt very much that black citizens of the North earn the exact same pay as the white male at the time, so you'd have to make it, realistically, at half the pay of a white worker at the time.

i think this would be deemed unconstitutional.

the emancipation proclamation had no actual authority as congress did not enact a law during the war to affirm the proclamation. the 13th amendment ended slavery in the US, and the states ratified the 13th after the war ended. if the government imposed back-pay on slave owners for those two years, i think the slave owners could have successfully appealed to SCOTUS. there wouldn't be back-pay owed to ex-slaves for when they were still technically property.

nobody challenged the emancipation proclamation IRL, probably because the emancipation proclamation only encouraged more of what the US already practiced -- seizing and freeing slaves from rebellious states. rather than leave it to the discretion of the US occupying forces, the proclamation essentially ordered those forces to seize/free all slaves in their area.

Fine, confiscate the land as penalty of treason and execute them.

[Razgovory]

I think it is one of the most glorious chapters in American history that we fought a bloody civil war and were able to reconcile afterwards.

Yeah, if you ain't black.  Otherwise it's not so good.

Yeah...

I can't tell if you are agreeing with me or disagreeing with me.

[MadImmortalMan]

Slavery was legal until 1863. 

Nope. December 1865.

[Valmy]

Why?  The south still did.  The Union threw blacks under the bus to keep the peace.

They threw blacks under the bus to win the 1876 Presidential Election.

[Eddie Teach]

They threw blacks under the bus to win the 1876 Presidential Election.

Clearly that was because the Republicans were too moderate and weren't getting their base of rebel-haters energized enough.

[Tonitrus]

I figure we worked out that frustration on the Lincoln assassination conspirators.

[Razgovory]

Why?  The south still did.  The Union threw blacks under the bus to keep the peace.

They threw blacks under the bus to win the 1876 Presidential Election.

And peace was assured. Or in the words of  D. W. Griffith, "The former enemies of North and South are united again in defense of their Aryan birthright".

[derspiess]

http://open.spotify.com/track/1puBX04LSrA0g96NCjGDlv