What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Valmy]

Well like I said it would just have been a first step. But I think an important one.

You'd have showed that rebellion is unacceptable, and that the rebels lost. That killing Americans for the right to own slaves is beyond the pale of any acceptable American conduct. That the rebels weren't noble heroes fighting for an honorable cause, but criminal scum that belong in the cesspit of history. It would have laid the foundation for actually making an effort to make African-Americans equal to other Americans (this would even in the best case I think have been a slow process, but letting racism be enshrined in law and treating Confederate leaders like gentlemen was NOT the way to do it).

Basically, the North should have acted like the Talebans act today.  Got it.  Can't be clearer. No mercy for those who have differing opinions, do it the European way: kill 'em all, let God sort 'em all.

Um hundreds of thousands of Americans had been killed by these bastards but according to you they are just had differing opinions? Do actions not matter at all?

We are talking about people who formed an army to do battle because they lost an election, not people with just differing opinions.

They had sent cavalry raids into US territory burning and looting.

But that is just differing opinions? What is wrong with you?

[Valmy]

We should have destroyed the planter class and given the land to poor white and black farmers.

Nothing prevented the US from doing it with these officers alive.  Yet, the country didn't.

Yes for all kinds of reasons. Again we are a country of lawyers.

[Grey Fox]

I find it interesting that Fox News personalities are praising Lee's views on Reconstruction, when in reality Lee expressed concerns over the fact that black voting power might overcome white conservative votes, and when in the present day, Fox News personalities and much of the GOP are expressing concern that black voting power might be overcoming white conservative votes.

plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose




(board Frenchies, I expect your grudging respect that I actually went out to make sure I got the accents right on this one)

À César ce qui est à César.

[Valmy]

He did come from a family which was very much uncertain and ambiguous on the issue though, and had slide into aristocratic poverty because of it.

I believe most of the slaves belonged to his wife, and he had to take custody of them as they were an asset guaranteeing loans.  It's like selling your house when there's a mortgage on it, it can't be done unless the bank is repaid.

What are you talking about here? Most of Washington's slaves did not belong to his wife though they were freed a bit prematurely as Martha felt a little uncomfortable being between them and freedom. In any case the situation was a blow morally and financially to the Washington-Custis-Lee clan. Not only had they not inherited the enslavement of those people but they had to wrestle with Washington's example. The ones that remained with enslaved people at least adopted Washington's later reforms to his own plantation and productivity suffered.

Lee was named executor of his father in law's will in 1857. He tried to hire a competent overseer, failed to find one, managed the plantation himself.  The will said the slaves should be freed by 1862 and that's what he did, after selling most of them to pay the debts.

Yes I talked about that. Is that true? I don't believe even Lee was base enough to sell those slaves. He did indeed free them as his Father-in-Law requested.

He had contempt for abolitionists for the same reasons Washington never spoked publicly against slavery.
He was not very much in favor of slavery, but mostly because he believed it was evil for the white race.  Just like the majority of Americans at the time, and most like the majority of Europeans too, he considered black folks to be a distinct and inferior species to white people.  It's not like Abe Lincoln and the majority of Union Generals were supportive of racial equality, you know.  Even good old Abe said he would keep the slaves chained if that helped preserve the Union.

Ok first Abe was a liar as he said that after he had already secretly signed the emancipation proclamation, he said that to assuage anti-war New Yorkers that he was not some abolitionist fanatic. He constantly worked to portray himself as a moderate on this point. Not to say that Abe always was lying when taking a soft edge in the whole question, but he clearly was lying there. But anyway I don't think I have ever claimed that Lincoln and his generals were some kind of 21st century left wing types.

Every once in a while Lee would wring his hands over the moral degeneracy he saw slavery as causing to white people but as you say that was not super uncommon a thing for planters to do. Using it as evidence he was anti-slavery in any way exceptional for his class falls a bit flat. It did create an impression that he was anti-slavery though for a long time which I guess was handy in creating the Lee myth which I suppose had its political and social uses.

And that is wrong... how, exactly?  You think the North freed the slaves 3 years into the war from the goodness of the heart?  They finally saw the light and realized that "negroes" as they were called back then were human beings too?
Don't be ridiculous.  I know you hate nationalists of all kind, but you're entering alt-history here.

The North started freeing slaves immediately, starting in August of 1861. The Emancipation Proclamation did not free any slaves in the occupied territories because most of them had already been freed, it was mostly making legal what was already happening. I am not sure what what I think the North did or did not do with any amount of their hearts. But the fact is that the Republican Party was an anti-slavery party and had all kinds of reasons but idealistic to cynical to be anti-slavery. I am not sure what the Alt-Hist thing here is. Also the Emancipation Proclamation was proclaimed in 1862. How is that "three years into the war"? Or is this a reference to the XIII amendment? Well that had to wait for obvious political reasons. I am not sure how these basic historical facts are "alt hist" or what hating nationalists has to do with anything.

And oh my God do neo-Confederates love this one as well. Slaves were freed cynically, you see, to weaken the Confederacy, not because the Republican Party (a party whose entire existence was about opposing the institution of slavery) actually opposed slavery. Just more about how the abolitionists were the cynical ones and the noble slavers were the ones with the pure principles. And boy Lee is a great source of that as he calls out anybody opposed to the Southern planter class as hypocrites.

It is mostly true.  The Republican party wanted to limit slavery, not end it in the South.

That was what they agreed upon before the war because it included a huge range of anti-slavery sentiments. But plenty of Republicans wanted to go further than that.

But above all, they wanted to punish the South for seceding.  Their hatred of the Southerners was greater then their love of the Black Man.

Well obviously after many years of bloody war emotions can get high. But again you are talking about the short period after the war, after slavery had already been outlawed even in non-seceding territories. At that point the primary reason the Republican Party existed, to oppose slavery to some extent, had been achieved. So naturally what united them at that point? The war. Waiving the bloody shirt.

Otherwise, it would be hard to explain why they didn't recognize Liberia right away and only waited 2 years into their own Civil War.

Again they recognized Liberia in 1862. They were just a little busy in 1861. Not sure how 1862 is two years into the Civil War.

It was another good way to piss off the South.  It would also be hard to explain why Lincoln did not believe the Whites and Blacks people should mix.  It would be hard to explain why so many Union Generals expressed dismay about the thought of having free Blacks mingle with good, White People.  Despite their own abolitionist tendancies.

Well if abolishing slavery and giving black men citizenship and the vote were just done out of rage against the South then I only wish everybody did such positive things with their hatred.

Jonston wanted to merge his army with a part of Lee's army to counter attack the Union forces of Sherman than attack Grant.  Hardly the move a desperate officer on the verge of surrender would think of.

Sure that was the obvious plan on paper, but Lee knew he was unlikely to make that happen.

But Johnston's army shockingly collapsed at the Battle of Bentonville and the only reason Sherman did not destroy him at that point was because Sherman was shocked at how quickly the Confederate lines collapsed and weirdly took pity on Johnston. Johnston, on the retreat, watched his teenage reservists drown crossing a river and was sitting there gloomily when one of his officers suggested going up into the mountains and fighting a "Thermopylae" against Sherman to which Johnston icily responded "I am not in the Thermopylae business". Yeah he was a pretty demoralized general.

However, Lee rejected the plan. I don't know if it was the right call, on paper, Johnston's idea souds great, but I lack knowledge to make an informed opinion on the matter and will defer on further discussions between you, Berkut and Dorsey to make such an opinion.

Lee's Army was in big trouble by that point.

Anyhow, he tried to fight off Shermann but couldn't break through due to the superior numbers of the northerners.  Again, hardly indicative of a dude who's just itching to surrender.

Clearly you know something I don't. His army immediately collapsed at Bentonville. Johnston had to embarrasingly run out of his HQ with his staff with the federal troops were advancing. It was a demoralizing and shocking moment for everybody. It definitely showed his army was never fit to fight.

But once Lee surrendered, he knew there was no way to escape his situation: he could not break through, he could not flee, all that was left was dying of starvation of being killed in battle, so he negotiated with Shermann.  A dude who was also against abolition of slavery, btw.  A pretty common thing back then... Yet, he's a hero.  Go figure.

Johnston did immediately surrender once he learned Lee had but I hardly think he was eager to fight after what he had seen.

Sherman was a pretty big racist sure, but hey he was the "50 acres and a mule" guy. I don't know if he is the uncontroversial hero you seem to think he is.

As for Lee's decision, he was in the same spot of JEJ, unable to escape, unable to fight.  Sure, he may have thought retrospectively that he should have died with all his men.  But most of his officers were urging him to surrender, IIRC.  I am not convinced that at this point in time that near totality of Confederate soldiers under Lee's command would have willingly dug their graves to make a last stand, without food and ammunitions.

Yeah the fact that Ewell's Corps had just surrendered en masse was a pretty devastating moment for Lee. How reliable was his army really at that point?

Kinda like George Washington expressing his opposition to slavery in very private letters, giving moral support for abolitionist projects but always refused to speak publicly about it...  It would seem some people were keen on preserving their social status back then.

I mean I am talking about his private letters, though. It was not like Lee was very often making big public statements or political speeches.

How about this: He was a man of his time.  He was lukewarm about slavery but believed it to be too divisive a subject to be discussed and thought (rightly so) that political discussions of this would only leed to radicalization of his fellow Southerners.

He absolutely was a man of his time and his class. The only thing that makes him tricky is because of Lee the legend. I am not sure how you get the divisiveness there. He very much spoke in favor of the Southern cause as one might expect and for the most part supported it publicly.

Was he wrong?

Yes I don't think 19th century southern planters were right about very much.

Had the South pushed for unionization of workers in norhtern plants and an improvement in their working conditions and wages, the North would have declared independance.

I doubt it. Most of the North was agricultural. There were "factories" but almost all of them were small workshops at this point. Big plants with lots of workers to unionize would take a few years, that just wasn't there in the 1850s. And plenty of people did call for those things as the 19th century wore on, far from universal public outrage and demands for secession the Northern population sometimes voted reformers into office. I don't think the Northern population was as ready to fight and die for the right to not unionize as you seem to think.

Promoting the pure abolition of slavery was an economic threat to the southern's states economy.

Economy? Maybe. It is not like you cannot grow cash crops without slavery but it certainly threatened the southern elite's economy.

Limiting the expansion of slavery met limiting the opportunity of growth for southern planters.

Yeah no doubt.

Back then, I figure things were kinda similar to how it was in Quebec's agricultural community, by tradition, the eldest son inherited his father's lands and the others either found work elsewhere or bought some other land with the help of their father.
Since all the Americans were busy taking indian lands before the war, preventing the use of slaves in an area meant that it would be very difficult to produce tobacco or cotton in these new lands.

Not true. Agriculture continued to thrive before, during, and after the war. Those stolen American Indian lands can produce whether share croppers or small farmers or whomever is farming it. Slavery might not even be the most efficient way but I haven't compared southern cotton yields for the periods before or after the war. The war did seriously wreck the cotton market though.

Only mechanization solved the manpower problem of the South and that was much later. They relied on sharecropping and other measures really similar to slavery to exploit their lands after the war.

Yeah it was almost like you didn't need slavery to exploit people. And anyway to claim that share cropping is "similar to slavery" is hilariously ignorant. Yes share cropping is extremely exploitative and terrible but I would be a share cropper a million times before I would be a slave. Sort of like how people compare being indentured to being a slave. Yes indentures are terrible but you are still a person with rights, and hey maybe at some point you pay off your debt or become a journeyman. Same with being a share cropper.

And it's not like anyone wanted to waged war over that or even publicly protested in the North...

I am sure somebody did. All kind of protests were made about all kinds of exploitative worker relationships in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

[alfred russel]

You have to be very firm with rebels, while simultaneosuly stretching out a genuinely positive hand to those who reject rebellion. If you coexist with rebels you will never resolve the issues. You have to kill the sons of Brutus.

I think the late 1860s was a time of strong racism in America and many other places. Like I said earlier I think getting African-Americans to approach being equals would have been a slow process. But I think it's extremely unlikely that what occurred historically in the South was the best the US could do. You have to remember that hanging the leaders wouldn't just have sent a message in the late 1860s, but in every decade since, up to and including the present day. I think Lee and others being in the history books as losers hanging from a rope would have helped. And made the bizarre 20th century naming of military stuff after pro-slavery rebels less likely.

The south never seceded again, never attempted to secede again, and slavery was sworn off forever. The war and the peace were won by the standards of the time (again I acknowledge there were northerners who felt like former slaves were betrayed).

You move forward a half century, and the south is as patriotic as the rest of the country. Over time it probably became hyper patriotic. And yes the naming of 20th century military stuff after confederates is on a very superficial level bizarre, but it was highly effective at bringing white southerners into the national mainstream.

Take the early 1960s. The height of the civil rights movement, the south vociferously objecting to integration, the government ramming it through. The government also launching nuclear submarines named after Stonewall Jackson, and being extremely respectful of southern sensibilities during the centennial of the battle of gettysburg. The prior president that called in the national guard to integrate a school in arkansas listed Robert E. Lee as one of the 4 greatest americans of all time. In the end in the Vietnam War southerners were more likely to serve than the nation at large, their unhappiness with national racial politics nonwithstanding.

[grumbler]

No, he shouldn't have been hanged, I agree.  Making martyrs out of Lee, Davis, etc. would have been a terrible decision.

Nah, memories of them would have rapidly faded, just like happened with John Brown when he was hanged.

[Eddie Teach]

John Brown's objective was secured shortly after his death.

[Threviel]

Is this peak Languish? 

[Solmyr]

No, he shouldn't have been hanged, I agree.  Making martyrs out of Lee, Davis, etc. would have been a terrible decision.

So now people are making martyrs out of their statues.

[Sheilbh]

From Popbitch

How is Donald Trump commemorating the 20th anniversary of 9/11 this weekend? By providing 'alternate ringside commentary' on the Holyfield v Belfort fight at the Florida Hard Rock Hotel & Casino.

[The Minsky Moment]

I mean, Lee was a traitor, so of course Trump and his basket of deplorables love him.

so was George Washington.  But he won, while Lee lost.

If Washington lost, it is safe to say that no statues to him would be erected in British America whereas the torn down statutes of King George would be restored.  I would note that none of our neo-Confederates has attacked the demolition of George III's statuary during the revolution as vandalism against heritage or called for their restoration.

Because Washington did win, this land is now the USA, not a possession of the United Kingdom. So it is a bit bizarre for the statutes to insurrectionist secessionists to be erected.

[The Minsky Moment]

You move forward a half century, and the south is as patriotic as the rest of the country. Over time it probably became hyper patriotic. And yes the naming of 20th century military stuff after confederates is on a very superficial level bizarre, but it was highly effective at bringing white southerners into the national mainstream. . . .

Yes but at the cost of reinforcing a racist ideology.  There is a connection between the willingness to tolerate or even encourage glorification of the Confederacy, and the fact that Ike had to send soldiers to protect a girl going to school.

[Tamas]

Historical preservation is such nonsense, when it is so clearly linked to decidedly wrong event and worldview.

It was the same argument when the old white-red striped flag (resembling the House of Arpad coat of arms) started re-appearing in the hands of far-right people in Hungary in the 90s.

"But it is about Arpad and our history, let me be proud of my heritage". Yeah right, of the literally dozens of flags and coats of arms to choose from (if you don't want to use your country's current flag), you just HAD to go with the semi-fictional one used by bloody Nazis in the 1940s.

[Sheilbh]

Yes but at the cost of reinforcing a racist ideology.  There is a connection between the willingness to tolerate or even encourage glorification of the Confederacy, and the fact that Ike had to send soldiers to protect a girl going to school.

Yeah - I think arguably the post-Reconstruction through to civil rights was white Americans North and South agreeing on a common narrative of the war for the sake peace between them, at the cost of the rights of black Americans.

Because Washington did win, this land is now the USA, not a possession of the United Kingdom. So it is a bit bizarre for the statutes to insurrectionist secessionists to be erected.

Although Washington has a statue in London (as does Gandhi).

[Caliga]

Is this peak Languish? 

If someone can figure out a way to fold Incan torpedo boats into the discussion, then it will be.  So not quite there yet.