• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Linkura

Member
Oct 25, 2017
19,943
So, democrats have a judiciary problem coming up: https://www.washingtonpost.com/powe...34a2b33be52_story.html?utm_term=.ef3916de3327







The long and short of it someone will probably have to go, and after her performance over the summer, that person should be Feinstein, except she's the ranking member, so good luck getting her to abdicate. Considering Grassley is out, the logic of getting rid of the other geriatric makes sense.
Feinstein needs to GTFO
 
Oct 25, 2017
5,846
If Lincoln had not been killed I think things would have gone down differently. The rivalry between the Radical Republicans and Andrew Johnson threw reconstruction off the rails real quick.

Lincoln wasn't interested in Reconstruction as the radicals wanted either. With the benefit of hindsight it would probably still would have been better, but I'm not sure how much it would materially affect the outcome. It was Lincoln's successors that ended Reconstruction.

pretty sure organizations like the KKK only formed and began lynching people after the federal government withdrew the Reconstruction-enforcement troops from the south.
You've got your timeline muddled. The first version of the KKK formed during early reconstruction, and was basically gone before it ended.
 

Deleted member 31817

Nov 7, 2017
30,876
Ultimately the North was also really racist so I don't know how much Reconstruction changes if events are different.
Not to pile on you or anything but I believe the state of the country would be vastly different if Reconstruction was handled properly. It's possibly the biggest failure of American domestic policy ever imo (excluding the obvious shit like slavery which was ingrained before the country was even founded).
 

corasaur

Member
Oct 26, 2017
3,988
Lincoln wasn't interested in Reconstruction as the radicals wanted either. With the benefit of hindsight it would probably still would have been better, but I'm not sure how much it would materially affect the outcome. It was Lincoln's successors that ended Reconstruction.


You've got your timeline muddled. The first version of the KKK formed during early reconstruction, and was basically gone before it ended.
ah. thanks. gotta do some actual history reading on the reconstruction.
 

DanGo

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,742
So, democrats have a judiciary problem coming up: https://www.washingtonpost.com/powe...34a2b33be52_story.html?utm_term=.ef3916de3327







The long and short of it someone will probably have to go, and after her performance over the summer, that person should be Feinstein, except she's the ranking member, so good luck getting her to abdicate. Considering Grassley is out, the logic of getting rid of the other geriatric makes sense.
Feinstein really just needed to retire. Sigh.
 

B-Dubs

That's some catch, that catch-22
On Break
Oct 25, 2017
32,776
People forget that right after the civil war, many black citizens were elected to office and started to implement changes in the South, which was possible since the North's military was down there enforcing the rule of law.

When they were sold out by the Republicans and Reconstruction ended, they literally had their fairly elected seats stolen by gunpoint and were marched out of state legislatures. Ex-Confederates used their stolen seats and quickly and immediately started passing laws to shut the door behind them.
Pretty much

Lincoln might not have been a whole lot better than Johnson, but I'd still be interested in the timeline where he wasn't killed and had the reigns.
 

Basileus777

Member
Oct 26, 2017
9,203
New Jersey
Not to pile on you or anything but I believe the state of the country would be vastly different if Reconstruction was handled properly. It's possibly the biggest failure of American domestic policy ever imo (excluding the obvious shit like slavery which was ingrained before the country was even founded).
The Union Army dwindled back to peacetime levels within a few years of Appomattox and the means to enforce a more thorough reconstruction weren't really there, the army only really had a significant presence in urban areas and the terror was largely unchecked in the countryside.

But really it wasn't handled properly because the political will for it never existed. For most people in the North, racial equality was never an end in itself. For Democrats, of course (roughly 45% of Northerners) it was never an end at all. As for Republicans, their main concern was to stop the Southern states being governed by elements disloyal to the Union, who might raise another rebellion. However, it soon became evident that this wasn't a serious problem, that most ex-rebels were willing to accept the failure of secession, as long as they were left alone to run their states as they wished, especially where race relations was concerned. Once this was recognized, black rights became at best an irrelevance, at worst an obstacle to sectional reconciliation, so it didn't take too long for them to be abandoned. The Radical Republicans weren't going to exist forever, and the nation as a whole, despite disagreements on slavery, were pretty united in the idea that blacks were inferior. A longer military occupation was just going to make Southerners angrier without changing the end result. Eventually the North would have to withdraw and things would boil over. The tragic truth is that Reconstruction was doomed to failure.
 

B-Dubs

That's some catch, that catch-22
On Break
Oct 25, 2017
32,776
The Union Army dwindled back to peacetime levels within a few years of Appomattox and the means to enforce a more thorough reconstruction weren't really there, the army only really had a significant presence in urban areas and the terror was largely unchecked in the countryside.

But really it wasn't handled properly because the political will for it never existed. For most people in the North, racial equality was never an end in itself. For Democrats, of course (roughly 45% of Northerners) it was never an end at all. As for Republicans, their main concern was to stop the Southern states being governed by elements disloyal to the Union, who might raise another rebellion. However, it soon became evident that this wasn't a serious problem, that most ex-rebels were willing to accept the failure of secession, as long as they were left alone to run their states as they wished, especially where race relations was concerned. Once this was recognized, black rights became at best an irrelevance, at worst an obstacle to sectional reconciliation, so it didn't take too long for them to be abandoned. The Radical Republicans weren't going to exist forever, and the nation as a whole, despite disagreements on slavery, were pretty united in the idea that blacks were inferior. A longer military occupation was just going to make Southerners angrier without changing the end result. Eventually the North would have to withdraw and things would boil over. The tragic truth is that Reconstruction was doomed to failure.
Unless, of course, you actually punish the leaders of the secession like the traitors they were. At which point they aren't around and a pretty clear message gets sent to whoever is left.

But you are probably right anyway.
 

Albert

Member
Oct 25, 2017
866
So, democrats have a judiciary problem coming up: https://www.washingtonpost.com/powe...34a2b33be52_story.html?utm_term=.ef3916de3327







The long and short of it someone will probably have to go, and after her performance over the summer, that person should be Feinstein, except she's the ranking member, so good luck getting her to abdicate. Considering Grassley is out, the logic of getting rid of the other geriatric makes sense.
Harris losing that position would be awful, especially since unlike Feinstein and Coons, she's actually competent.
 

Basileus777

Member
Oct 26, 2017
9,203
New Jersey
Unless, of course, you actually punish the leaders of the secession like the traitors they were. At which point they aren't around and a pretty clear message gets sent to whoever is left.

But you are probably right anyway.
You're not going to get a President and Congress that will do that though. Lincoln would not want any part of it. Hell without Andrew Johnson you might not even get radical reconstruction or some of the later reconstruction amendments.
 
Oct 25, 2017
5,846
ah. thanks. gotta do some actual history reading on the reconstruction.

To be fair, there were still white supremacist organizations operating after the Klan, and things certainly did go south after Reconstruction ended, hence the nadir of American civil rights being the turn of the century. But I'd argue it wasn't the removal of troops that doomed reconstruction's gains to be half-measures, but the federal government and courts' unwillingness to actually enforce federal law in the years afterwards.
 

Linkura

Member
Oct 25, 2017
19,943
Shit man...

Just watched BlacKkKlansman. Good movie. But at the very end, I was fighting back tears when
they showed the Charlottesville events and the car plowing into people and them talking about and memorializing Heather Heyer.

Shit man.........
 

Antrax

Member
Oct 25, 2017
13,286
We did the Civil War backwards from how we did Germany and Japan after WW2 where we tried (and sometimes executed) their leaders and forced them to adopt certain laws at gunpoint, but also rebuilt all the things that got blown up for the populace there.

In the South, we didn't do anything to Confederate leaders, but we left all the farms and shit obliterated so that regular folks (of any race) had nothing to rely on to grow the region. Economically, it's like the region was frozen in time for like 50 years after the Civil War.
 
Oct 25, 2017
4,819
We did the Civil War backwards from how we did Germany and Japan after WW2 where we tried (and sometimes executed) their leaders and forced them to adopt certain laws at gunpoint, but also rebuilt all the things that got blown up for the populace there.

In the South, we didn't do anything to Confederate leaders, but we left all the farms and shit obliterated so that regular folks (of any race) had nothing to rely on to grow the region. Economically, it's like the region was frozen in time for like 50 years after the Civil War.
Andrew Johnson was perhaps our worst president. Shame Lincoln didn't keep Hamlin as VP.
 

Ogodei

One Winged Slayer
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
10,256
Coruscant
I think the South was never industrialized like the North for the last few centuries and the devastation from the civil war didn't help either.

The South didn't industrialize on a large scale until Civil Rights opened the door for the sunbelt migration of business. Before the Civil Rights act, things like the old vagrancy laws kept the South locked in the 1860s because cotton-picking was still the primary source of employment for black people. Jim Crow was designed in part to make sure that black people had little choice but to work for their old slavemasters for peanuts unless they moved hundreds or thousands of miles away to the industrial cities of the north and California.

The South's poverty is tied to the legacy of slavery and the places where that poverty was broken are the places where northern or West Coast businesses moved in.
 

Zed

Member
Oct 28, 2017
2,544
Andrew Johnson was perhaps our worst president. Shame Lincoln didn't keep Hamlin as VP.

Yeah, whenever people say Richard Nixon or James Buchanan are the worst I always point to Andrew Johnson.

We did the Civil War backwards from how we did Germany and Japan after WW2 where we tried (and sometimes executed) their leaders and forced them to adopt certain laws at gunpoint, but also rebuilt all the things that got blown up for the populace there.

In the South, we didn't do anything to Confederate leaders, but we left all the farms and shit obliterated so that regular folks (of any race) had nothing to rely on to grow the region. Economically, it's like the region was frozen in time for like 50 years after the Civil War.

Andrew Johnson basically let Southerners off the hook after the Civil War. Another thing is there was no incentive to prop up the South like Germany and Japan since there was no equivalent threat like the Soviet Union after the Civil War.

If the Soviet Union never existed and the Allies still won WWII in basically the same way I could easily see the US letting Germany and Japan fester in their ruins.
 

patientzero

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,729
Jim Crow was designed in part to make sure that black people had little choice but to work for their old slavemasters for peanuts unless they moved hundreds or thousands of miles away to the industrial cities of the north and California.

I remember first coming across the idea on On the Media, but while any of us versed somewhat in American history know of the great migration there are some historians that are reframing the migration as an intranational refugee crisis. I find that to be a compelling argument and a pretty radical but totally worthwhile way of framing large migrations within countries.
 

pigeon

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,447
I have a somewhat jaundiced view of this "Reconstruction was never going to go well" argument. Grant and Sherman, at least, knew what was necessary. Lincoln is quite famous for suggesting that the Civil War was God's judgement on America, so I think the consistent "actually he didn't care that much about slavery" argument is a bit facile.

I think we could have won the war if we had kept fighting.
 

Basileus777

Member
Oct 26, 2017
9,203
New Jersey
I have a somewhat jaundiced view of this "Reconstruction was never going to go well" argument. Grant and Sherman, at least, knew what was necessary. Lincoln is quite famous for suggesting that the Civil War was God's judgement on America, so I think the consistent "actually he didn't care that much about slavery" argument is a bit facile.

I think we could have won the war if we had kept fighting.
Lincoln's ten percentage plan was noted for its leniency and was even softer than the reconstruction that we ended up getting. And that fake quote doesn't really speak to anything to has been said in this thread, where the discussion hasn't been about slavery.
 

pigeon

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,447
Lincoln's ten percentage plan was noted for its leniency and was even softer than the reconstruction that we ended up getting. And that fake quote doesn't really speak to anything to has been said in this thread, where the discussion hasn't been about slavery.

What...fake quote? The second Inaugural is fake news?
 

Deleted member 11637

Oct 27, 2017
18,204
60 Minutes' top story revisits the child internment camps, and the lifelong trauma inflicted on the children; eerily well-timed given the border lockdown. The sheer dearth of empathy in the world triggers my depression hard :(
 

TerminusFox

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
3,851
Lincoln's ten percentage plan was noted for its leniency and was even softer than the reconstruction that we ended up getting. And that fake quote doesn't really speak to anything to has been said in this thread, where the discussion hasn't been about slavery.

We left too early, and every officer in the Confederacy should've been executed. No exceptions, except for MAYBE Lee. And even then, he has just as much blood on his hands as his peers did. They were on there knees and instead of a helping hand, it should've been a stomp to the throat.
 

Linkura

Member
Oct 25, 2017
19,943
We left too early, and every officer in the Confederacy should've been executed. No exceptions, except for MAYBE Lee. And even then, he has just as much blood on his hands as his peers did. They were on there knees and instead of a helping hand, it should've been a stomp to the throat.
Why spare Lee? Just curious as to your reasoning there.
 

Sho_Nuff82

Member
Nov 14, 2017
18,438


Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff says he expects Democrats will bring in acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker for testimony about any actions he might be taking with regards to special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation https://cnn.it/2RiRdJa

Whitaker is going to regret taking this job.
 

Zed

Member
Oct 28, 2017
2,544
Why spare Lee? Just curious as to your reasoning there.

That makes me think I could see Lee being spared to be made an example of how someone can be reformed or de-mythised. Kind of like how the Emperor of Japan was de-mythised after WWII by the United States and how the last Emperor of China was "reformed" to be a good communist. Sparing a legendary figure and bending them to your will can be powerful for getting their followers to adapt to new customs.
 

Linkura

Member
Oct 25, 2017
19,943


Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff says he expects Democrats will bring in acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker for testimony about any actions he might be taking with regards to special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation https://cnn.it/2RiRdJa

Whitaker is going to regret taking this job.

Lmao get em Schiff.

I was referring to you quoting "actually he didn't care that much about slavery" when no one said that or even discussed Lincoln's thoughts on slavery.
That makes me think I could see Lee being spared to be made an example of how someone can be reformed or de-mythised. Kind of like how the Emperor of Japan was de-mythised after WWII by the United States and how the last Emperor of China was "reformed" to be a good communist. Sparing a legendary figure and bending them to your will can be powerful for getting their followers to adapt to new customs.
These make sense.
 
Oct 25, 2017
6,927
Shit man...

Just watched BlacKkKlansman. Good movie. But at the very end, I was fighting back tears when
they showed the Charlottesville events and the car plowing into people and them talking about and memorializing Heather Heyer.

Shit man.........
People can debate if Spike Lee is our current greatest living American filmmaker, and it's a debate worth having because he's made a lot of misses but he's so great when he hits, but you can argue on solid ground he's our most important. BlacKkKlansman is astounding.
 

Midnight Jon

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,161
Ohio
I was referring to you quoting "actually he didn't care that much about slavery" when no one said that or even discussed Lincoln's thoughts on slavery.
unlike discord i'm not this site's immortal god-king so i can't speak conclusively for pigeon, but i'm pretty sure that was a general quotation of every dipshit offsite who makes that claim and not a statement that anyone in this thread has ever made it
 
Status
Not open for further replies.