Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Okay...so what is your proposal? Who should have been punished, how many? What should the punishment have been?...
All the generals on both sides swore an oath to our federal government before the war. Some from northern states broke their oath and sided with the slavers, some from the southern states kept theirs and fought for their country.
If I were President, I would have have put the civilian leadership up to the equivalent of our senator level and the military leadership down to the rank of colonel up for trial. As for punishment, who knows how many would have been convicted of treason and lesser crimes. But the trials wouldn't have been held in enemy territory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander
...And what makes you think that being extra severe on a defeated foe will alter that foe's behavior for the good? Let us say that the US executed President Davis and all the members of his cabinet...how would that have made the remaining southerners more disposed to treating the freed slaves better?
What makes you think that what I propose is "extra severe" when you just learned that we were historically extra lenient?!? Get with the programme
General Grant's and Johnson's pardons and the whole attitude of forgiveness went a long way in allowing southern racists to terrorize and run roughshod on freed slaves. It's one of our nation's greatest shame. The south should have been occupied long enough to ensure the rights of all Americans.
I believe we can learn a lot from Germany. Systematically gassing millions of Jews over a few years is a horrible act, but keeping millions of people in abject poverty and slavery for hundreds of years comes damn close. But you don't see many monuments to Hitler do you?
All the generals on both sides swore an oath to our federal government before the war.
No they didn't. Many of the generals on both sides had no military experience at all, or experience limited to local militia. None of those people would have sworn an oath to the Federal government.
Further, West Point officers were not barred from resigning their commissions. Once a commission was resigned, the conditions of the oath no longer applied. An officer's oath was conditional to the time in service, not the rest of his life once he was no longer in that service.
Quote:
If I were President, I would have have put the civilian leadership up to the equivalent of our senator level and the military leadership down to the rank of colonel up for trial.
There were close to 500 Confederates holding general rank, and better than 2500 Colonels. There were 26 Confederate Senators. I assume "up to the equivalent of senator level" would embrace President Davis and his cabinet officers. What about state governors or legislators who were especially influential in the secession of their state? They get a pass?
Quote:
What makes you think that what I propose is "extra severe" when you just learned that we were historically extra lenient?!? Get with the programme
The above fails to make any sense. I have not "just learned" anything and I have asked you to explain your program for punishing southerners, which I assumed to be severe given your enthusiasm for the idea. Of course I cannot help but note that you did not provide us with what sort of punishments you have in mind for those you have proscribed above. Perhaps if you will share them with us, we may decide for ourselves how severe they are. We have a pool of around 3000 defendants by your criteria, what do we do with them?
Okay...so what is your proposal? Who should have been punished, how many? What should the punishment have been?
And what makes you think that being extra severe on a defeated foe will alter that foe's behavior for the good? Let us say that the US executed President Davis and all the members of his cabinet...how would that have made the remaining southerners more disposed to treating the freed slaves better?
There's no rational answer to an irrational question. Even Genghis Khan is thought to have acknowledged, "Violence never settles anything".
What 'good' did the assassination of President Lincoln accomplish?
There's no rational answer to an irrational question.
The question remains rational whether or not a rational answer is available.
If someone is calling for the punishment of traitors, the very least we should be able to expect is a description of what those punishments ought to be.
If someone is calling for the punishment of traitors, the very least we should be able to expect
is a description of what those punishments ought to be.
But no one is doing that... except perhaps you.
The closest the discussion can get now is to lament that something more severe was not done then.
Beyond that all you have is pointless rhetoric and conjecture.
The ship has sailed.
---
otoh... we can do all sorts of things about the 'what can we do now" questions.
Ripping down the monuments makes a terrific start.
No they didn't. Many of the generals on both sides had no military experience at all, or experience limited to local militia. None of those people would have sworn an oath to the Federal government.
Further, West Point officers were not barred from resigning their commissions. Once a commission was resigned, the conditions of the oath no longer applied. An officer's oath was conditional to the time in service, not the rest of his life once he was no longer in that service...
Military experience has nothing to do with the subject at hand and while breaking their oath isn't considered treason, taking up arms against the United States surely is. As our Constitution clearly spells out; "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort..."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander
...There were close to 500 Confederates holding general rank, and better than 2500 Colonels. There were 26 Confederate Senators. I assume "up to the equivalent of senator level" would embrace President Davis and his cabinet officers. What about state governors or legislators who were especially influential in the secession of their state? They get a pass?...
Had I been President, I would have had no problem with the numbers you cite. And you talked me into it, Governors who gave aid and comfort to the armies levying war against the United States should have been arrested and put on trial. But as I pointed out earlier, to be practical and humane you have to draw the line somewhere. So no, legislators and thousands of others would have received a free pass.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander
...The above fails to make any sense. I have not "just learned" anything and I have asked you to explain your program for punishing southerners, which I assumed to be severe given your enthusiasm for the idea. Of course I cannot help but note that you did not provide us with what sort of punishments you have in mind for those you have proscribed above. Perhaps if you will share them with us, we may decide for ourselves how severe they are. We have a pool of around 3000 defendants by your criteria, what do we do with them?
You must first open your mind in order to learn anything
This will be my last post in this thread so you're welcome to have the last word. But regarding what sort of punishments should have been dealt out, everyone should have received a fair trial and for those found guilty, I imagine the penalties would have ranged from fines to hanging. Personally I would have used life in prison for the worst offenders as I'm opposed to the death penalty.
But how would you or most countries penalize those who're convicted of treason?
I imagine the penalties would have ranged from fines to hanging. Personally I would have used life in prison for the worst offenders as I'm opposed to the death penalty.
But how would you or most countries penalize those who're convicted of treason?
I wouldn't create a host of executed or incarcerated martyrs who serve as symbols to keep the cause alive and enhance the bitterness on the part of the defeated.
You wrote that the reason you advocated the punishments was
Quote:
General Grant's and Johnson's pardons and the whole attitude of forgiveness went a long way in allowing southern racists to terrorize and run roughshod on freed slaves.
Removing all those on your list with lifetime sentences would still be removing but a tiny number of the southern racists, leaving most in place to do what they did. Your solution would not work, and in fact would probably further inflame those left behind and intensify their resolve to keep the blacks in a subordinate position.
The execution or incarceration of 'heroes' of the Confederacy was apparently unnecessary hence the many monuments, memorials & statuary erected to honor the martyrdom of the Lost Cause.
Apparently all that was necessary to sustain & perpetuate the mythologies was the Dunning School along with their historiographical school of thought regarding the Reconstruction period.
Yes, it is treason. The thing is, however, that the victors get to write history. Thus, those fighting against the Brits during the American Revolution were also committing treason. Because they were successful in their treason, though, they are hailed as heroes by the country today.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
