Hooray for the simple pleasures of slavery

[Lord Zentei]

Being so overtly draconian would have forever alienated the south from the Union. I agree that the institution of slavery is abhorrent, but that does not justify abhorrent retribution.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Being so overtly draconian would have forever alienated the south from the Union. I agree that the institution of slavery is abhorrent, but that does not justify abhorrent retribution.

Quite to the contrary, it is the only way that we could have guaranteed a free and prosperous south. The black population would have naturally assumed the leadership of the southern states with the proper education and financial resources; and the armed and free black citizenry would have never allowed another secession. Most of the problems facing America today in terms of social reaction would have been wiped out by radical reconstruction, beyond that, since they originate from the south and southern attitudes. We would have had to hang 500,000 men, but that would have guaranteed an end to the repression, fundamentalism, and racism of the south, and all the harm (including harm in the form of reduced lifespans for blacks to this day) it did to countless tens of millions in the past hundred and fifty years.

[HemlockGrey]

I'm not sure if going Roman on the South would have been exactly effective; if rebel soldiers knew they faced death and slaughter if they surrendered then the war could have devolved into a brutal guerrilla campaign that would have dragged on for ages and seriously sapped US strength. Perhaps Davis and the Confederate leadership ought to have been lined up against the wall, but I think a full-blown Spartacus-style punishment of Confederate soldiery would have only ended in disaster.

However, I agree with the rest of your points, with the possible exception of the "all-black state". The slaveowners should have been stripped of their land, and the federal government should have ruled the South as an occupied territory for at least fifty years.

[Lord Zentei]

Quite to the contrary, it is the only way that we could have guaranteed a free and prosperous south. The black population would have naturally assumed the leadership of the southern states with the proper education and financial resources; and the armed and free black citizenry would have never allowed another secession. Most of the problems facing America today in terms of social reaction would have been wiped out by radical reconstruction, beyond that, since they originate from the south and southern attitudes. We would have had to hang 500,000 men, but that would have guaranteed an end to the repression, fundamentalism, and racism of the south, and all the harm (including harm in the form of reduced lifespans for blacks to this day) it did to countless tens of millions in the past hundred and fifty years.

You have not demonstrated that your suggestions would not permanently alienate the white south. If the "armed and free black citizenry would have [prevented] another secession" you risk swapping roles between opressors and opressed, particularly with your suggestion of 500000 hangings. That is out-and-out genocide.

Let's take a look at your other suggestions:

Resistance to the changes in the laws--including the enfranchisement of blacks--should have been met with fire and blood. A state should have been carved out of the deep south for freed slaves to guarantee them representation in Congress no matter what, and we should have admitted Haiti as a state of the union when they appealed to President Grant for admission during his term in office to further solidify this trend.

Resistance to the continued disenfranchisement of blacks should certainly have been far more vigorous, but "fire and blood"? The free state for the blacks would have required ethnic cleansing, as well as residency rights being based on ethnic background. Both are abhorrent. In any case seperate is not neccesarily equal.

The property of slave owners should have been entirely confiscated and given over to blacks, along with their wealth, no matter how few slaves an individual had owned nor even if they had sold them before the end; if they had ever once owned slaves they should have had all their property except for the clothes on their backs stripped from them and it should have been turned over to the freed slaves.

Subsidizing and supporting the newly freed black citizens is a good idea and should have been attempted more vigorously. But taking all the property of the former slaveowners would have created a huge population of desperately poor people who with every reason to hate the Union for untold generations to come. The impossibility of reconciliation that would follow from such actions would be every bit as bad as the very real social problems you are attempting to adress with them.

During the period of military occupation, a special tax should have been levied on white southerners to pay for the education of the black population. White schools in the south, likewise, should have been taken over by the federal government so that the indoctrination of children into the defunct "southern virtues" would have been prevented.

Schools for the black population would have been a good idea. Customizing taxes for specific ethnic groups is abhorrent. Taking over schools in the south would have placed additional responsibilities upon the federal government; federal school standards and inspections would have sufficed.

All of that, and more, should have been combined with the act of federal investment--paid for primarily by heavy taxes on the south due to the special military situation there--to build up large-scale industry in that area, thereby preventing agrarian conditions from prevailing for another seventy-five years which simply prolonged the outdated, fundamentalist, and racist viewpoints that held such a grip over that region.

Defeating the outdated, fundamentalist, and racist viewpoints that held such a grip over that region is indeed a worthy cause. But you are going to invest in the southern infrastructure using heavy taxes upon the south itself immediately after a devastating war? Do you beleive in perpetual motion machines as well?

As a northerner, and proudly Irish (that we fought so well for such a just cause), I can say that the collective fault of the north in regard to slave comes down to a single issue: We did not push through the programme of radical reconstruction at point of bayonet. That alone I would apologize for, and nothing else.

You certainly fought well and for a noble cause, and have reason to be proud of that. All the more reason for not becoming the very demon you exorcised.

Edited by request -Beo.

[Trogdor]

They always hail Lincoln as some heretic (the south) or some savior (north). He really didn't do jack. He freed the slaves....in the south...via the EP, which really didn't do much. At the same time, he kept the ones in the north in bondage. He didn't even want to end slavery, like most northerners.

Give Lincoln a break. He was being what good leaders should be with the EP: pragmatic. Had he freed the slaves in the Union slave states, he would've risked them switching sides and turning the tide of the war. Also, once the EP was made and put into action, he would not repeal it. McClellen would have if he'd won the presidency from him, if it meant that he could get the South to reenter the Union. This just would've led to a second civil war down the road, the outcome of which I cannot guess at, so be glad Lincoln got re-elected.

[Rogue 9]

Duchess, as abhorrent as slavery is, I'm going to have to object on the grounds that had my great-great-great grandfather been hung, the world would not have the benefit of my glorious presence. Jefferson Davis, the delegates to the secession conventions who signed the various Articles of Secession, the leaders, I can see. But every soldier? Hell, you're not thinking of the obvious consequence; had Lee known that every man under his command was going to be executed, he would not have surrendered at Appomattox. Forrest wouldn't have given up his cavalry, but rather would have continued the raids he was so very good at. Men who have nothing else to gain through surrender don't just give up.

[Illuminatus Primus]

You have not demonstrated that your suggestions would not permanently alienate the white south.-

Note - I'm not necessarily arguing for or against here. Noting that, we continue.

It's Marina's job to prove a negative?

If the "armed and free black citizenry would have [prevented] another secession" you risk swapping roles between opressors and opressed,

The South was going to be ruled by Washington. The Federal Army would not be supplanted by an armed, educated, and politically active black citizenry until much later, when tensions would have cooled considerably.

particularly with your suggestion of 500000 hangings. That is out-and-out genocide.

They are guilty of treason. The penalty for treason is death.

Resistance to the continued disenfranchisement of blacks should certainly have been far more vigorous, but "fire and blood"?

Violent resistance to Federal rule is again rebellion and by definition treason. Treason is punished by death.

The free state for the blacks would have required ethnic cleansing, as well as residency rights being based on ethnic background. Both are abhorrent. In any case seperate is not neccesarily equal.

I agree.

Subsidizing and supporting the newly freed black citizens is a good idea and should have been attempted more vigorously. But taking all the property of the former slaveowners would have created a huge population of desperately poor people who with every reason to hate the Union for untold generations to come. The impossibility of reconciliation that would follow from such actions would be every bit as bad as the very real social problems you are attempting to adress with them.

While the white aristocracy deserved to lose everything, that solution is probably unteniable.

Customizing taxes for specific ethnic groups is abhorrent.

How so? Living whites immediately after the war were inevitably supported on the back of black sclavery. This isn't a racial predisposition here; Southern whites really were prosperous across the board at the expense of the southern black population.

Taking over schools in the south would have placed additional responsibilities upon the federal government; federal school standards and inspections would have sufficed.

There's no states yet. Again, the Federal government's job is to administer and govern occupied territory by the military.

[Rogue 9]

You have not demonstrated that your suggestions would not permanently alienate the white south.-

Note - I'm not necessarily arguing for or against here. Noting that, we continue.

It's Marina's job to prove a negative?

No, so I'll supply the positive. If the reward for my surrender is summary execution, I'm not going to surrender. There are very few others who would.

If the "armed and free black citizenry would have [prevented] another secession" you risk swapping roles between opressors and opressed,

The South was going to be ruled by Washington. The Federal Army would not be supplanted by an armed, educated, and politically active black citizenry until much later, when tensions would have cooled considerably.

Not arguing about the redistribution of the plantations.

particularly with your suggestion of 500000 hangings. That is out-and-out genocide.

They are guilty of treason. The penalty for treason is death.

The ones guilty of treason were the government officials who seceded. After that, the common soldier was coerced through the fact that the Confederacy considered itself a nation against which treason could be committed, and defined desertion as treason. They were boned either way. Get rid of the signers of the Articles of Secession, hang the drafters of the Confederate Constitution, hell, hang Lee and the other generals if you must, but everyone down to the last private even when said private didn't have a choice?

Resistance to the continued disenfranchisement of blacks should certainly have been far more vigorous, but "fire and blood"?

Violent resistance to Federal rule is again rebellion and by definition treason. Treason is punished by death.

Indeed, but you have to weigh the practical aspect of it. There is a line. Going all General Sherman on a postwar South would cross it. Do that, and you breed massive resistance among the white population. They would still be under occupation to this day, assuming no one ever gave up the program.

The free state for the blacks would have required ethnic cleansing, as well as residency rights being based on ethnic background. Both are abhorrent. In any case seperate is not neccesarily equal.

I agree.

Indeed. You can take care of the Representatives problem through simple gerrymandering; you don't need an ethnic cleansing program.

Subsidizing and supporting the newly freed black citizens is a good idea and should have been attempted more vigorously. But taking all the property of the former slaveowners would have created a huge population of desperately poor people who with every reason to hate the Union for untold generations to come. The impossibility of reconciliation that would follow from such actions would be every bit as bad as the very real social problems you are attempting to adress with them.

While the white aristocracy deserved to lose everything, that solution is probably unteniable.

This I could actually go for. The slaves worked that land, made it profitable. They put in enough work that, had they been paid, would have been enough to pay for it several times over. It is theirs by right.

Customizing taxes for specific ethnic groups is abhorrent.

How so? Living whites immediately after the war were inevitably supported on the back of black sclavery. This isn't a racial predisposition here; Southern whites really were prosperous across the board at the expense of the southern black population.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States

Taking over schools in the south would have placed additional responsibilities upon the federal government; federal school standards and inspections would have sufficed.

There's no states yet. Again, the Federal government's job is to administer and govern occupied territory by the military.

[/quote]
Wrong. The states are still there. See Texas vs. White.

[GySgt. Hartman]

Now maybe we can go back to the original topic: Is there a widespread denial of the horrors of slavery in the south or are these just the usual few dickheads that you just can't get rid of? Are we talking about an isolated incident or a general attitude of ignoring history for the sake of regional patriotism?

[Rogue 9]

Now maybe we can go back to the original topic: Is there a widespread denial of the horrors of slavery in the south or are these just the usual few dickheads that you just can't get rid of? Are we talking about an isolated incident or a general attitude of ignoring history for the sake of regional patriotism?

I'm afraid that it's something of a regional attitude, though to be fair it more often manifests in blatantly ignoring the slavery issue altogether, not trying to whitewash it.

[GySgt. Hartman]

In other news, the principal discontinued the practice, and the publishers are part of some ominous "League of the South". So says the newsobserver

It's clear where my ancestors went wrong. Instead of working hard to keep a roof over their heads and the babies fed by farming a few acres of North Carolina dirt, they should have been slaves.

"Nearly every slave in the South enjoyed a higher standard of living than the poor whites of the South -- and had a much easier existence."

So says a ridiculous propaganda pamphlet called "Southern Slavery, As It Was" that claims to present the truth about slavery. The booklet was being used at a Wake County private school until the principal wisely called a halt to such silliness this week.

This kind of trash masquerading as historical fact shows how far some people will go to excuse the inexcusable. That its authors are closely involved with the goofy League of the South tells you all you need to know. The league, among other things, still advocates seceding from the United States. It is the same kind of revisionist pap being peddled by those wackos who claim the Holocaust wasn't all that bad. [...]

[HemlockGrey]

Wrong. The states are still there. See Texas vs. White.

And what makes you think that in an alternate history in which the United States pushed forward radical reconstructionism (or at least land reform and longer military occupation) that there would even be a Texas versus White, or that anyone would even care?

[Rogue 9]

Wrong. The states are still there. See Texas vs. White.

And what makes you think that in an alternate history in which the United States pushed forward radical reconstructionism (or at least land reform and longer military occupation) that there would even be a Texas versus White, or that anyone would even care?

Because said alternate history would not change the makeup of the Supreme Court. It might not have been Mr. White vs. the state of Texas, but they would have had to rule on the Reconstruction Acts at some point and I see no reason why they would rule differently.

[Lord Zentei]

Note - I'm not necessarily arguing for or against here. Noting that, we continue.

It's Marina's job to prove a negative?

What Rogue said. And Lincoln's policy was specifically designed to ease tensions and allow the Union to continue. As far as I can see he was successful as not only has the south not attempted to cesede again, but they are loyal members of the USA. If you maintain that he should have used a far more draconian policy I submit that the question ""would tensions have eventually have eased" is valid.

They are guilty of treason. The penalty for treason is death.

<snip>

Violent resistance to Federal rule is again rebellion and by definition treason. Treason is punished by death.

And genocide is genocide.

How so? Living whites immediately after the war were inevitably supported on the back of black sclavery. This isn't a racial predisposition here; Southern whites really were prosperous across the board at the expense of the southern black population.

The fact that whites were more wealthy across the board does not mean that customizing taxes for specific ethnic groups is not abhorrent. Besides, it makes such taxes redundant.

[Lord Zentei]

In other news, the principal discontinued the practice, and the publishers are part of some ominous "League of the South". So says the newsobserver

Well, that's a releif at least. These clowns were an isolated fringe group, which is not at all surprising.

[tharkûn]

Personally I think students should get a southern perspective of the war, however they should get it from period sources. Authors like Pollard make it abundantly clear that their mystical paternal "negro servitude" is necessary because they beleive the black race to be inferior to the white. Sure most slave owners didn't hideously maim their slaves as a matter of course, that was bad for profitibility, but the original "Souther viewpoint" was explicit in its racism. Rather than go for a contemporary whitewash, let southern propaganda speak for itself.

[Rogue 9]

Finally. Took me long enough to find a source, since my old one was removed. Texas vs. White. Of particular interest:

Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the United States, remained perfect and unimpaired. It certainly follows that the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union.

[Rogue 9]

Personally I think students should get a southern perspective of the war, however they should get it from period sources. Authors like Pollard make it abundantly clear that their mystical paternal "negro servitude" is necessary because they beleive the black race to be inferior to the white. Sure most slave owners didn't hideously maim their slaves as a matter of course, that was bad for profitibility, but the original "Souther viewpoint" was explicit in its racism. Rather than go for a contemporary whitewash, let southern propaganda speak for itself.

You mean like this?

No bill of attainder or ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition. This, our new Government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It is so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North who still cling to these errors with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind; from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is, forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics: their conclusions are right if their premises are. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights, with the white man.... I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the Northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery; that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle-a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of man. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds we should succeed, and that he and his associates in their crusade against our institutions would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as well as in physics and mechanics, I admitted, but told him it was he and those acting with him who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.

[Iceberg]

Here's what Wikipedia has to say about the League of the South.