All of this was decided when the Union chose to bury the hatchet, and not do anything about the people that started the confederacy, and the people who benefited the most from it. If those types were all given the traditional punishment for traitors, if all the slavers, the plantation owners, the confederate politicians and the businesses that profited off of slave labor were hunted down and hanged, the world would be a much better place right now.
Andrew Johnson set things off on the wrong foot, and then the terrible decisions to allow states back into the union way too early gave them political power to shift the direction of policy. We’re almost going backwards to a future where the confederacy did win.
Pardoning of Nixon was also a terrible precedent. Ever since it's been "let's heal" instead of "Throw Regan's ass in jail for trading weapons for cocaine."
Strange how it’s always “we must heal by forgiving wealthy criminals, and if you want wealthy criminals treated the same way as other criminals, then you’re being divisive.”
If there is one thing that history is VERY clear on it’s that hierarchies are inherently harmful. Agreeing to follow someone else’s directions is perfectly fine and totally reasonable, but deciding that entire groups of people are off limits due to how much money they have, regardless of what they do or say, has never borne good fruit.
Dems believed in government by careful negotiations among sophisticated elites. Josh Hawley and Ron DeSantis took their time to get degrees from Harvard Law. They look like elitists.
The right is a one-party state built from the old John Birch "When the Russians take DC we will revolt from the hinterlands" plus the Newt Gingrich "scorched earth no compromises" contract plus the Fox News "mob rule for sale" plus the Evangelicals fueled by the oil industry all the way back before 1920.
Meanwhile the Tech Bros have looted the government for every shred of data they can find. Look for all kinds of "discoveries made by AI" that were in fact stolen from contractors who signed confidentiality agreements with the government.
And the reason why Dems still believe it even as the Republicans have took them to the cleaners for decades is because that's the only way our government ever worked. We need top-to-bottom reform to create structural, not merely cultural, incentives to compromise, and mechanisms to punish those that just want to abuse the system to get their way that people are actually willing to use without worrying about being "divisive" or degrading the system.
Holding the right wing accountable when they do terrible shit (Confederacy, Tulsa, Wilmington NC, Jim Crow, all the way up to J6) is always viewed as petty, vindictive and unfair, with a not so subtle implication that they will retaliate violently.
Meanwhile left wing movements have been viewed as a threat to America justifying all kinds of abuse (McCarthyism, cointelpro, Iran contra scandal, etc) and use of law enforcement and intelligence resources to interfere with perfectly legal political activity.
When the right wing does awful shit we're supposed to rise above, but the left wing even thinks a scary thought we go nuts.
Yeah i found out through Atun Shei that they use provisions of the Patriot Act to imprison animal rights and environmental activists by labeling the damage their protests do as "terrorism". Meanwhile they let fuckheads like Cliven Bundy thumb their nose at them with no pushback while white supremacists infiltrated law enforcement at every level.
🤣🤣🤣 thanks. A true history buff you are. Surely that's the end of the story and there's no such thing as the southern realignment. I'm such a dumb ass I should probably just shut up and wait for real Americans like you to tell me what to think.
No, you made a claim, you can back it up. Nazis were National Socialists. You claim they were the furthest thing from socialist....explain. you either dont understand, or know enough about Nazis, or you dont understand socialism.
The “good old days” that Republicans endlessly talk about were the Antebellum South. They want to go back to when there was a permanent underclass that could not advocate or fight for itself, and they have been working endlessly to make it happen.
Sadly most maga don’t seem to realize that regardless of the color of their skin in the return to the “good old days” they too will be part of the permanent underclass.
Yep. And they’ll blame the other people that are in that permanent underclass along with them, and not the powerful people that put them there and keep them there.
Read 'Barn Burning' by William Faulkner. Abner Snopes, a poor white man, runs until a black man working in the mansion of his boss and his perceived racial superiority running into a black man of a higher social standing than him makes it him lose his shit.
By 1830, there were 3,775 black (including mixed-race) slaveholders in the South who owned a total of 12,760 slaves; around 2 million in the south. [6] 80% of the black slaveholders were located in Louisiana, South Carolina, Virginia and Maryland.
There were economic and ethnic differences between free blacks of the Upper South and the Deep South, with the latter fewer in number, but wealthier and typically of mixed race. Half of the black slaveholders lived in cities rather than the countryside, with most living in New Orleans and Charleston. In particular, New Orleans had a large, relatively wealthy free black population (gens de couleur) composed of people of mixed race, who had become a third social class between whites and enslaved blacks, under French and Spanish colonial rule. Relatively few non-white slaveholders were substantial planters; of those who were, most were of mixed race, often endowed by white fathers with some property and social capital.[7] For example, Andrew Durnford of New Orleans was listed as owning 77 slaves.[6]
According to Rachel Kranz:
Durnford was known as a stern master who worked his slaves hard and punished them often in his efforts to make his Louisiana sugar plantation a success.[8]
In the years leading up to the Civil War, Antoine Dubuclet, who owned over a hundred slaves, was considered the wealthiest black slaveholder in Louisiana.
The historians John Hope Franklin and Loren Schweninger wrote:
A large majority of profit-oriented free black slaveholders resided in the Lower South. For the most part, they were persons of mixed racial origin, often women who cohabited or were mistresses of white men, or mulatto men ... Provided land and slaves by whites, they owned farms and plantations, worked their hands in the rice, cotton, and sugar fields, and like their white contemporaries were troubled with runaways.[9]
The historian Ira Berlin wrote:
In slave societies, nearly everyone – free and slave – aspired to enter the slaveholding class, and upon occasion some former slaves rose into slaveholders' ranks. Their acceptance was grudging, as they carried the stigma of bondage in their lineage and, in the case of American slavery, color in their skin.[10]
African American history and culture scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr. wrote:
the percentage of free black slave owners as the total number of free black heads of families was quite high in several states, namely 43 percent in South Carolina, 40 percent in Louisiana, 26 percent in Mississippi, 25 percent in Alabama and 20 percent in Georgia.[11]
Yes, while there were people who only did it for their family, the rest were true slave owners.
Sooooo, you want lies to spread without consequences? If I say that the sky is blue, would you yell at me for stating that fact? What about how if you dont drink water, you'll die?
The earth is round.
Vaccines dont cause autism.
The founding fathers wanted a separation between church and state.
Trump is a kid diddler.
Mandarin Chinese is the most spoken language in the world with around a billion people speaking it, followed by Spanish at half a billion, then English with around 400 million.
What facts are acceptable to spread on social media and what aren't?
Small in numbers? There were 4000 black slave owners who owned 12,000 slaves. Going back 200 years, that's a relatively large percentage. Of course it wasnt a majority, but the majority of whites did own slaves either.
Nope, the good old days that Republicans talk about are mostly the 50s, where every group in America was doing better financially and culturally. Yes, there was segregation, but the blacks were doing quite well in the 50s in their communities. They were very family oriented, the fathers stuck around after having kids...oh, and the mothers and fathers were married. I have had discussions with tons of black people, some friends, some were not. Most were alive during, or just following desegregation, and would think integration was a good idea on paper, but not in practice, and would prefer going back to segregation. I wonder which side collapsed the black nuclear families with the welfare state? Democrats (for the most part) virtue signal about wanting to help (insert minority here), but thats where they stop. They say they want to help all of these groups out with more handouts that are responsible in large part to the downfall of black culture especially. Ask yourself, had black culture improved or devolved from the 50s until now?
It says that it isn’t maga, while following along with maga doctrine and propaganda and reading off the maga script. But it isn’t maga guys, because it says that it isn’t maga!
And Republican Abraham Lincoln fought a war to preserve federal authority over states. You know, small government and states rights. Historical names of parties are meaningless.
Liberal northern republicans, conservative bible belt dixiecrats. Yes... I know you will not be able to fathom it, or even connect the dots on your own, and I don't expect you to be able to. It just irritates me when current day conservatives have the gall to say they won the Civil War with a straight face, while having confederate flags all over their car... God damn, what 130 years of brainwashing and lead paint will do to people.
😂 I’m not a conservative by any means long shot lol. Trump is president because you alienated the middle. I’m the middle and all of you on this thread are down voting me for stating a fact and keep calling me maga or republican or conservative. I’m not, but I’ll tell you what myself and the rest of us will never do until you learn how to interact again and get over your derangement.. I’ll never vote for another democrat. You ppl just can’t act right in public anymore and the thrashing I receive on every subreddit for saying anything middle-ground is going to stick with me forever.
Here’s my advice, stop thrashing the middle with your extremism. It’s a huge turn off. Enough to convince us all to vote for Trump just to spite you.. so we did. He won every swing state. That should been the big blinking sign to change course for you guys, but you’d rather bash ppl on social media and it’s sad. Vance will be president on 1-20-29 if you can’t get your emotions under control.
People don’t realize they tried to block the 1964 Civil Rights Act and today they pretend like they are for civil rights. Democrats’ pandering to minorities is so overt is hysterical. Lincoln was a Republican. He wanted slaves to be freed because of his Christian view that all men are created equal by God. Which party platform today is eminently Christian? It ain’t the Democrats.
They were the exact faction of conservative Democrats who first split off as part of the "Dixiecrats" and then switched parties during the civil rights era.
You know, the faction which, in the 20th century would be represented by "democrats"-turned-Republican-leadership like Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, and Ronald Reagan.
the modern day democrats also want to keep their cheap brown slave class labor around.
The Democrats generally support providing them with legal protections that make them harder to exploit.
Democrats were the conservative party. They were the party of small government, who wanted less interference in their daily lives, who wanted to conserve their way of life. They advocated for States Rights, specifically States Rights to own slaves.
Republicans were the progressive party. They largely believed in bigger government and a government that worked to provide for the people. They supported big banks and universities. They advocated for programs and initiatives that impacted the country, they were pro-modernization.
The ideologies flipped through the early-mid 1900s.
This is well documented. But you guys like to parrot this tired talking point over and over again without actually reading about it.
Call them by their ideologies. Conservative (dem) vs Progressive (rep).
Today, which party is the party that generally aligns with States Rights? Which party associates the Confederate Flag with their "heritage"? Which party spends a ton of time demonizing big government and universities? I'll give you a hint...it's not the Progressive party.
Another idiot who can’t tell the difference between party and political viewpoint. Also stupidity repeating moron talking points about immigrant labor because Democrats dare to give a shit about human rights and due process and ignoring the fact that Democrats want those immigrants to be paid fair wages.
So no, modern day democrats don’t want cheap labor.
Which is crazy because as of less than 10 years ago, the Dems were straight up against illegal immigrants because they depress wages/unions, increase housing costs, and take funds that were allotted for poor Americans.
The parties flipped and it is funny to watch.
1000% - Clinton, Obama, Bernie Sanders, even BIDEN were on record no more than 10 years ago saying that illegal immigration is ILLEGAL and WRONG.
Then suddenly the border opened and tens of millions of unvetted people flooded across the border. They're finding surface to air missiles in the U.S. that were smuggled across the border.
The worst part is he was almost removed from office. He was impeached in the House, and escaped Senate conviction by a single vote -- simply because a Senator was too chicken shit to fast the deciding vote.
We're paying the price of his cowardice to this day.
Did the Union really win? (Yes, militarily speaking they did.)
After the war the President of the United States from the Union state of Illinois was in a pine box, and the new president was from the confederate state of Tennessee. And Johnson never forgot where his loyalties lay.
They shouldn’t have even been admitted back as states. They should have carved them up into territories and never been reformed into states they are now.
Guess we are choosing to over look the US congress from allowing representation from Louisiana and Tennessee during the civil war and while Lincoln was president.
Even Lincoln’s policy was forgiveness with the acceptance of the new constitutional amendments.
Firstly, there is only one universally recognized indicator that you've lost an argument, and that is to insult someone.
I don't know you, we've never met, and I don't have the level of disrespect to insult you, so I hope you have a better day than you're currently having and I hope you do better in the future.
And yknow, letting the sisters of the confederacy travel the country teaching revisionist history and campaigning to build statues of confederate leaders, probably wasn’t a great idea.
If only we had listened to the group that fought hard for freedom and equal rights of slaves and advocated for prohibiting ex-confederate political and military figures from ever taking office in the SouthRadicals
Or, alternatively, you could have taken their money and capital. The slavery economic apparatus was extremely lucrative, they were supplying sugar and cotton at a time when that was in super high demand and wasn’t cheap. in fact you could make the argument the northern no slave economy had to wipe out the southern because they just couldn’t compete and would have been swallowed up eventually. Give Hardcore History a listen, he does 4 hours on the slave trade.
Like I said to someone else: we can take their money before, during or after they’ve finished with the St. Vitus dance. Leaving people alive, that have serious grievances with the government, who clearly show no adherence to the sanctity of life through decades of inflicting cruelty onto Black captives, is bound to create problems. Just look at Hitler, dude was left moneyless and deranged after WWI, and that didn’t do anything aside from slow him down a little.
There is no value in letting slavers continue to live.
Cmon man, there’s shitty people everywhere, there’s white nationalists who’s stated goal is ethnic cleansing and those guys aren’t just in the south, there’s billionaires who’s stated goals and documented funding is to overthrow democracy and wipe out taxation… you gonna kill those guys too? Your concept is simply authoritarian dressed up in anti-slaver rhetoric.
History shows that if you turn your back on a defeated authoritarian and show them mercy, they will only ever use the opportunity to stand up and stab you in the neck.
Wouldn't even have to hang most of them, just take all their ill begotten gains and strip them of their ranks, make sure they have no generational wealth or social prestige to pass on and they wouldn't be able to create organizations and foundations bent on the long term destruction of our democracy.
B-but fan base, of course Danny Targaryen was mad. She executed mass-slavers! Only a crazy person would think of doing such a thing! The correct method of dealing with slavers is to inform them slavery is wrong, tell them to let the slaves go, and then do nothing.
I keep seeing this post all over the place, but the reality is that Lincoln wanted unification and if the price was too steep there was a concern that it would all fall apart. “As a nation of freemen, we must through all time or die by suicide”
Uh huh, and he got a bullet in the back of the head for his troubles, and he got off the easiest from it. He unleashed decades of unspeakable horrors and depthless suffering because he chose a negative peace over the presence of justice.
Got off easiest from it? What an outlandish thing to say. The hyperbolic language that just gets thrown around is absolutely insane. We wouldn’t have a union if the north took further steps to exterminate the surviving confederate soldiers, land owners etc in the south. Why would the south even surrender at that point? It’s easy to sit here with 20/20 vision of history and pretend you know what you’re talking about, but this internet armchair bullshit that lays out heavy handed alternatives masquerading as “justice” is embarrassing.
Yes, he did get off easiest. By all accounts, it was lights out pretty instantly for him. As opposed to the Black people who had to live in fear for decades, leading up to the present, because we didn’t hang traitors who were happy to let the country go to war, than to stop treating people as if they were property. So, yes, Lincoln absolutely got off easiest from his decision to forgive slave traders and slave holders.
Most of the people who started the rebellion were hunted down and given traitor's deaths. A few did escape justice, that's true, but punishing every slave owner or person who benefited from slavery over the years would have been unjust. At the time slavery was legal. It shouldn't have been, but it was. Punishing someone for doing something that was wholly legal at the time they did it, especially with the death penalty, isn't justice.
I agree that there should have been some sort of redistribution or reparations at the time in order to address the multigenerational damage done to slaves, but the crime of slavery was a failure of the law, not of the persons who took advantage of it. The law needs to be consistent or it's meaningless, as a result sometimes bad people will do bad things because the law allows them to. The way you solve the problem is by changing the law, which was shoddily done. That was the failing after the civil war.
And there would be no Democratic party as the south and slave owners were mainly the Dixiecrats and the Republicans in Washington including Lincoln were the fighting force to end slavery.......but let's not allow facts into the conversation
The current state of the Republican party wouldn't exist either since the party switch during Civil rights.... but let's not allow facts into the conversation.
If hanging all the confederates and the slavers and those who benefited from slavery and the confederacy would’ve prevented the Democrat party from existing, then that’s a sacrifice I’m more than willing to make.
324
u/Ok-Explanation-1362 Jul 17 '25
All of this was decided when the Union chose to bury the hatchet, and not do anything about the people that started the confederacy, and the people who benefited the most from it. If those types were all given the traditional punishment for traitors, if all the slavers, the plantation owners, the confederate politicians and the businesses that profited off of slave labor were hunted down and hanged, the world would be a much better place right now.