What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Berkut]

"Yes officer, I did keep those girls locked in my basement for 15 years. But my personal support for slavery and kidnapping is hard to really understand, I mean, I was thinking about letting them go...you know....eventually?"

[Razgovory]

Grant also owned a slave, I think he was a gift from his father-in-law.  Grant released the poor guy, and moved to Illinois to live in poverty.  When the war came he was just a clerk at a hardware store.

[The Brain]

Grant also owned a slave, I think he was a gift from his father-in-law.  Grant released the poor guy, and moved to Illinois to live in poverty.  When the war came he was just a clerk at a hardware store.

And then he rose to general?

[viper37]

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.

First, there are statues of Montcalm in Canada.  There are various places names after the French generals who lost the war.

Second, this whole statue thing is a seperate issue.  My understanding is most of them came a decade or two after the war, and in the case of Lee, he was long dead.

That he is or not a traitor is totally distinct from any kind of worship some people may lay upon him or other generals.

Imho, someone like Nathan Bedford Forrests fits the bill for traitorous behaviour, but neither Lee or Longstreet or most of the others do.  They fought for their State, right or wrong, it's what you do. 

The US was certainly wrong to rebel against the British crown from a legal point of view.  It was sedition, secession and armed attack against the lawful authorities.  But the majority of Americans felt closer to their states than to their country, so they joined the fight against the British crown and those who stayed loyal.

And I personally do not see any problem with that.  Nor do I see a problem with the Canadian Patriots rebellion, nor do I see a problem with Riel's rebellion.  Aside the fact they all lost.

People often pick a side based on whom they feel closer to.  Valmy may hate nationalists, but if 'blue' States seperated after the second election of Donald Trump, I doubt he'd fight for "loyal" Texas against his northern family.  And honestly, I can't picture you either siding with a Trump government against a state's rebellion.  But who knows?  Maybe I got you all wrong and your own desires for loyalty and righteousness would overwhelm any qualms you may have in siding with the orange clown

[grumbler]

-the slaves Lee owned were an inheritance from his father in law.  As per the will they were to be freed within 5 years.  It appeared that it was Lee's intention to free them (as he was required to do) after the full five years so that funds could be raised to pay off the debts of the estate. (the war ultimately came before the 5 years were up)

Some of his slaves were his from his mother.  Lee freed the slaves owned by his father-in-law's estate only after being forced to by two court decisions (and after Lincoln had already freed them, though Lee didn't know it).

Moreover, Lee had his army kidnap free people and enslave them, and wrote to grant that all black Union soldiers captured by his army were property of the Confederate government.

These were not the actions of a reluctant slaveowner.

-he professed his loyalty to Virginia, not to the US.  He spoke out against secession, but when Virginia voted for secession he remained loyal to Virginia and resigned from the US military.

He swore and oath to preserve, protect, and defend the US Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.  Instead of fulfilling that oath, he became that enemy.

[grumbler]

If in his heart of hearts he was troubled by slavery, it matters not in the slightest bit when stacked against the fact that every action he took supported the monstrous institution.

it matters greatly, for if he knew it was evil and he did it anyway, he's far worse than someone who doesn't believe it is evil and does it.

There's a distinction between evil men and fucking evil men.

[viper37]

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?

Hundreds of thousands of Southerners had been killed by the other bastard.  It's usually what happens during a war, you know?  People get killed.  Lots of people got killed during the American Revolution.  Yet, immediatly after, they resumed trading with the Brits.  And they let the British retreat without executing anyone after the war ended.  Why should it be different with the Confederates?

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

They formed an army to evict squatters and protect themselves from a planned Northern invasion after they declared their independance.  Many States only seceded when Lincoln called for volunteers to crush the secessionists.

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

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

Again, it's war.  They declared their independance, and the US govt promised to liberate the military forts it was holding.  Instead, Lincoln sent supplies to goad them into attacking.  So they sent cavalry raids burning and looting, just like the North did in Southern territories.

Once a part of nation declares independance, democratically, it should be respected.  Even if their root cause is absolutely wrong.

[Berkut]

-the slaves Lee owned were an inheritance from his father in law.  As per the will they were to be freed within 5 years.  It appeared that it was Lee's intention to free them (as he was required to do) after the full five years so that funds could be raised to pay off the debts of the estate. (the war ultimately came before the 5 years were up)

Some of his slaves were his from his mother.  Lee freed the slaves owned by his father-in-law's estate only after being forced to by two court decisions (and after Lincoln had already freed them, though Lee didn't know it).

Moreover, Lee had his army kidnap free people and enslave them, and wrote to grant that all black Union soldiers captured by his army were property of the Confederate government.

These were not the actions of a reluctant slaveowner.

-he professed his loyalty to Virginia, not to the US.  He spoke out against secession, but when Virginia voted for secession he remained loyal to Virginia and resigned from the US military.

He swore and oath to preserve, protect, and defend the US Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.  Instead of fulfilling that oath, he became that enemy.

Some excellent examples in this thread of how you can focus on minutae to ignore the giant whopping obvious fact of the matter.

Robery E. Lee was an officer in the United States Army. He went to West Point. He swore an oath to the United States of America. Not to the Commonwealth of Virgnia.

You can argue, if you want, that his treachery was warranted. But you cannot argue that it was not treason without really torturing the common English understanding of what that word meant.

[Barrister]

Moreover, Lee had his army kidnap free people and enslave them, and wrote to grant that all black Union soldiers captured by his army were property of the Confederate government.

That one is a lot harder to defend I'll grant you.

[Berkut]

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.

First, there are statues of Montcalm in Canada.  There are various places names after the French generals who lost the war.

Second, this whole statue thing is a seperate issue.  My understanding is most of them came a decade or two after the war, and in the case of Lee, he was long dead.

That he is or not a traitor is totally distinct from any kind of worship some people may lay upon him or other generals.

Imho, someone like Nathan Bedford Forrests fits the bill for traitorous behaviour, but neither Lee or Longstreet or most of the others do.  They fought for their State, right or wrong, it's what you do. 

The US was certainly wrong to rebel against the British crown from a legal point of view.  It was sedition, secession and armed attack against the lawful authorities.  But the majority of Americans felt closer to their states than to their country, so they joined the fight against the British crown and those who stayed loyal.

And I personally do not see any problem with that.  Nor do I see a problem with the Canadian Patriots rebellion, nor do I see a problem with Riel's rebellion.  Aside the fact they all lost.

People often pick a side based on whom they feel closer to.  Valmy may hate nationalists, but if 'blue' States seperated after the second election of Donald Trump, I doubt he'd fight for "loyal" Texas against his northern family.  And honestly, I can't picture you either siding with a Trump government against a state's rebellion.  But who knows?  Maybe I got you all wrong and your own desires for loyalty and righteousness would overwhelm any qualms you may have in siding with the orange clown

You definitely got me all wrong.

If I was in the American colonies, say New York, during the Rebellion, I am sure I would have supported that rebellion and been proud to call myself a traitor to a regime that did not deserve my loyalty. Still a traitor though.

And I had lived in the South in the early 1860s, I would (barring some very fundamental difference in my basic character) absolutely NOT have called myself a traitor, and would not have supported the rebellion against the legal authority of the federal government.

The details matter. I don't see any problem with rebellion if the reasons for rebellion are just and warrant the expected cost. I also don't see a problem with noting that people who are rebels are, mostly, traitors to whatever it is they are rebelling against.

[Berkut]

Moreover, Lee had his army kidnap free people and enslave them, and wrote to grant that all black Union soldiers captured by his army were property of the Confederate government.

That one is a lot harder to defend I'll grant you.

You'll grant him?

Well played sir!

[Jacob]

it matters greatly, for if he knew it was evil and he did it anyway, he's far worse than someone who doesn't believe it is evil and does it.

There's a distinction between evil men and fucking evil men.

That's a fair point, grumbler.

[grumbler]

Hundreds of thousands of Southerners had been killed by the other bastard.  It's usually what happens during a war, you know?  People get killed.  Lots of people got killed during the American Revolution.  Yet, immediatly after, they resumed trading with the Brits.  And they let the British retreat without executing anyone after the war ended.  Why should it be different with the Confederates?

The difference is that the Confederates had committed treason against the government that won.  Had the British won the AWI, they'd have hanged the rebel leaders.  Why should it be different with the Confederates?

They formed an army to evict squatters and protect themselves from a planned Northern invasion after they declared their independance.  Many States only seceded when Lincoln called for volunteers to crush the secessionists.

That's perhaps the lamest Confederatard apologism I've ever read.  The Confederates seceded before any plan to invade the South.  Many states seceded (and admitted they seceded) to preserve slavery.  Without secession, there would have been no war.

Again, it's war.  They declared their independance, and the US govt promised to liberate the military forts it was holding.  Instead, Lincoln sent supplies to goad them into attacking.  So they sent cavalry raids burning and looting, just like the North did in Southern territories.

I love the contention that "Lincoln sent supplies to goad them into attacking!"  I suppose the garrisons ate the supplies they already had, creating the need for more supplies, also just "to goad them into attacking?"

Once a part of nation declares independance, democratically, it should be respected.  Even if their root cause is absolutely wrong.

Bullshit.  The argument that people can just vote their houses out of their nation is absurd.  And the South did not secede democratically.  The elites decided on secession and the rest of the people just were dragged along with them.

Secession should be respected when it is successful.  The South failed that test.

[viper37]

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.

We were talking of Lee.  I don't think he owned slaves before taking over his wife's plantation.

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.

I don't know if it's true, but it's what is written in history books with decent original sources attesting to it.  He was a carreer military officer, not a plantation owner, which he became by necessity.

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.

I never said he was anti-slavery, nor do I think anyone here said this.He was ambiguous on the thing though.  Not its strongest supporter, but certainly not an abolitionist.  Were there even abolitionists living in 1860s Virginia?

The North started freeing slaves immediately, starting in August of 1861.

No, they were confiscated property.  Not freed and sent on their merry way. Most of them had to work for the north.  That was left to the discretion of any general. They were certainly not emancipated as they were not legally freedmen.  They didn't get to fight in the Union army until much later, and they coudn't own property either.

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.

The alt-hist is the much proclaimed "fact" that the North fought against slavery.  The South fought to protect slavery, the North fought to protect the Union.
I don't see any good or bad side here, just two different goals unworthy of waging war.

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.

Of course they did.  Just like today many Democrats want to go much further than Biden is willing to.  It happens in a democracy, lots of people in the same party have diverging opinions.

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.

I'm talking about the war itself.  The North wanted to protect the Union, that was the main goal. Freeing the slaves was secondary because it hurt the South.

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.

Doesn't mean you can't do go by having bad intentions.  You can certainly do harm with good intentions.

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

I know, but as I said, I don't know enough about this part to form a definitive opinion.

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.

At 3 pm, Confederate infantry from the Army of Tennessee launched an attack and drove the Union left flank back in confusion, nearly capturing Carlin in the process and overrunning the XIV Corps field hospital.^[20] Confederates under Maj. Gen. D.H. Hill filled the vacuum left by the retreating Federals and began enfilading the Union troops remaining along the front. Morgan's division was nearly surrounded and was being attacked from three sides, but the Confederate attacks were uncoordinated and therefore unsuccessful in driving them from the position.^[21] Hardee, using Taliaferro's division and Bate's corps from the Army of Tennessee, attacked the Union positions near the Harper house but were repulsed after multiple assaults. McLaws arrived after Taliaferro and Bate were repulsed. He attacked, but was repulsed as well.^[22] After a heated engagement, Union reinforcements arrived and checked Hill's assault.^[23] Fighting continued after nightfall as the Confederates tried without success to drive back the Union line. About midnight, the Confederates withdrew to their original positions and started entrenching.^[24]
Slocum had called for aid from Sherman during the afternoon attacks, and Howard's wing arrived on the field late on the afternoon of March 20, deploying on Slocum's right flank and extending the Union line towards Mill Creek. Johnston responded to Howard's arrival by pulling back Hoke's division so it ran at a right angle to Stewart's left flank, and deployed one of Hardee's divisions on Hoke's left. Confederate cavalry protected the Confederate flank to Mill Creek in a weak skirmish line.^[25] Only light skirmishing occurred on this day. Johnston remained on the field, claiming that he stayed to remove his wounded, but perhaps also in hope of enticing Sherman to attack again, as had happened at Kennesaw Mountain.^[26]
On March 21, Union Maj. Gen. Joseph A. Mower, commanding the division on the Union right flank, requested permission from his corps commander to launch a "little reconnaissance" to his front, which was granted.^[27] Mower instead launched an attack with two brigades on the Confederate left flank, which was defending Mill Creek Bridge. Mower's men managed to come within one-mile (1.6 km) of the crossing before Sherman peremptorily ordered them to pull back. In his memoirs, Sherman admitted that this was a mistake and that he missed an opportunity to end the campaign then and there, perhaps capturing Johnston's army entirely. Among the Confederate casualties was Hardee's 16-year-old son, Willie. Hardee had reluctantly allowed his son to attach himself to the 8th Texas Cavalry just hours before Mower's attack.^{[28] Not as dramactic as you make it to be, certainly not the sign of a desperate man, but he did lose over 10% of his forces.  There's no doubt it's a Shermann victory, but he won due to timely reinforcements (which is the quality of a good officer, obviously).  He outnumbered Johnston 3:1 in total number of troops.}

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

Sure, he already knew he could do nothing against Sherman alone.  Why would he keep fighting once it was certain there were no reinforcements coming?

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.

Jacqueline Campbell has written, on the other hand, that some slaves looked upon the Union army's ransacking and invasive actions with disdain. They often felt betrayed, as they "suffered along with their owners, complicating their decision of whether to flee with or from Union troops," although that is now seen as a post synopsis of Confederate nationalism.^[20] A Confederate officer estimated that 10,000 liberated slaves followed Sherman's army, and hundreds died of "hunger, disease, or exposure" along the way.^[21]

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?

Variable mood, from what I've heard.  About were willing to keep fighting, but for how long?  In these kind of situations, a person may be willing to fight to the death one day and willing to surrender the next.  So, despite all his bravado about fighting to the death, I don't think it was in any way realistic.

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.

He was against Secession, but he was very much a Virginian.I can respect that, I can understand that, you can't, for some reason.

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

They wanted to protect their financial interests, just like northern industrialists fighting against workers unions some time later.

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.

The North's economy depended on its factories.  It was an industrial economy.  There were farms, just like there are today, but it wasn't a huge part of the economy.
The North was given time to evolve, the South was faced with the prospect of mass abolition by a party who had, for the time, radical views on slavery.  Workers's rights legislation did not come about until the second decade of the 20th century.

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

It was a very labor intensive practice back then.  They relied on labor until technology enabled them not to.

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.

I believe there was an economic study made on this, not so long ago, and it showed that it simply wasn't profitable enough to attrack large planters without the slaves, or other form of very cheap labor.

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.

I don't think black share croppers had much rights in 1910 South Carolina.

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.

that's 40-50 years after 1860.

[viper37]

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.

they were poorers.  Having free healthcare and a job helped motivation a lot.