How would you punish the rebel leadership after the American Civil War

[wcv215]

What does his policy have to do with anything?

Because, and follow me on this, if secession is illegal (which it is), then the South NEVER legally seceded. As such they were all traitors for waging war against the legitimately elected government of the United States.

The CSA wasn't trying to do anything of the sort. Had he left them alone the whole war could have been butterflied away and the whole matter is resolved without loss of life.

Oh bull-fucking-shit. The CSA had been attacking federal installations for three months by the time Lincoln became president. At every turn the South showed every intention of getting their way by force. Fort Sumter was just the straw that broke the camel's back. Lincoln Jefferson Davis was calling for an army of a hundred thousand men to fight the north a MONTH before Lincoln issued his own call to arms.

By all means, have trials but the crimes have to be something that can be used on them.

You mean like for instance the massacre of prisoners and the enslavement of American citizens? You know, things that I directly specified charging the upper ranking Confederates with to avoid the question of treason (not least because those crimes are still severe enough to see them dance on a gallows.

Both Northern and Southern opinion would have denounced that .Northern radicals were offering to defend Davis and Lee was universally respected as the officer and gentleman he was.

So what? Lee and Davis should have hanged for their crimes, and if some northern idiot wants to go to bat to defend those evil assholes then he can feel free to ruin his reputation. Because so far as I'm concerned dragging the reputations of Lee and Davis down to where they belonged is EXACTLY the aim. Almost as important as hanging the two.

 

[Admiral Spaun]

Nobody cares what the losing side has to say. You win or you don't matter at all in the eyes of the world.

The Lost Cause would like a word with you.

 

[SpaceOrbisGaming]

Because, and follow me on this, if secession is illegal (which it is), then the South NEVER legally seceded. As such they were all traitors for waging war against the legitimately elected government of the United States.


Oh bull-fucking-shit. The CSA had been attacking federal installations for three months by the time Lincoln became president. At every turn the South showed every intention of getting their way by force. Fort Sumter was just the straw that broke the camel's back. Lincoln Jefferson Davis was calling for an army of a hundred thousand men to fight the north a MONTH before Lincoln issued his own call to arms.


You mean like for instance the massacre of prisoners and the enslavement of American citizens? You know, things that I directly specified charging the upper ranking Confederates with to avoid the question of treason (not least because those crimes are still severe enough to see them dance on a gallows.


So what? Lee and Davis should have hanged for their crimes, and if some northern idiot wants to go to bat to defend those evil assholes then he can feel free to ruin his reputation. Because so far as I'm concerned dragging the reputations of Lee and Davis down to where they belonged is EXACTLY the aim. Almost as important as hanging the two.

1-Guess what that's how the US was formed in 1776. To say it can't be done is about as unamerican as you can get. The right to form a government is why the US exists in the first place. By your logic the nation I live in never legally left the United Kingdom. Making it illegal to do so after the fact doesn't mean anything and it shouldn't be illegal. We should be able to replace our government if the one we have is unjust. It shouldn't be an easy thing to do sure but it should be able to be done. Otherwise, a lot of nations shouldn't exist.

2-The south knew that if he won they would be fucked over. The north could have helped the south move away from needing slavery so much. Yet where did all the railroads go. The north. The south may of had the slaves pick the crops but it was the north that made the real money from them. The union is just as bad as the south was and winning the war doesn't remove them from making money off of the slaves. It just means that bit is edited out of our history books.

3-I will admit I don't know about how people waged wars in the 1800s but is killing people who were trying to kill you really a crime? From my understanding POW more or less just waited to be returned to their side. I know that the south had places that the Union troops were worked really hard but I'm unsure if that was a war crime yet. Hell, I'm not even sure such a thing even existed in 1861-1865.

4-What crimes are you implying here? Fighting for one's nation or home? I don't think that's a crime. What did Lee do that should see him killed? Because I know of nothing that should see him killed. But I will admit that I haven't really looked into the war besides in a school textbook over 13 years ago.

 

[SpaceOrbisGaming]

The Lost Cause would like a word with you.

And how many people care about such an idea? Nobody. The winner matters not the losing side.

 

[Admiral Spaun]

And how many people care about such an idea? Nobody. The winner matters not the losing side.

I don't think this is the hill you want to die on dude. If you want to see how many people still subscribe to the Lost Cause, look at the discourse surrounding Confederate statues today.

 

[DDJR]

You cant have a federal property outside of the federation

So, if the South won they would be evicting illegal occupants, but as they lost, it is the Union that wrotethe history.

The Secession was not federally recognized. Indeed, in U.S law, it was a completely illegal act.

The ideal solution would be a radical Reconstruction that broke the back of the planter's class and made some proper land reform to benefit the poorer whites and former slaves. Probably the lion share would have to go to poorer whites (i.e former Confederate soldiers) for political reasons, but a relevant portion staying under the former slaves would give a core of loyal citizens.

Punishing individual citizens of the CSA, aside from very egregious cases of slavers and war crimes would not be very conductive to healing the nation. The tricky part is how to accomplish a Radical Reconstruction in a way that the Northern people manages to care enough for long enough. Lincoln surviving his assassination attempt could do the trick, but only to a certain point, i guess.

 

[wcv215]

1-Guess what that's how the US was formed in 1776. To say it can't be done is about as unamerican as you can get. The right to form a government is why the US exists in the first place. By your logic the nation I live in never legally left the United Kingdom. Making it illegal to do so after the fact doesn't mean anything and it shouldn't be illegal. We should be able to replace our government if the one we have is unjust. It shouldn't be an easy thing to do sure but it should be able to be done. Otherwise, a lot of nations shouldn't exist.

The United States broke away from Britain because it was not, and could not, be represented in the British government, and as such according to British political theory, Parliament had no legal authority over them. Sure Parliament didn't like that interpretation, but it was still perfectly in line with British tradition. What's more, the US only broke away AFTER it was attacked by Britain, and had been declared to be in rebellion by them. Sure a lot of Americans wanted to break away before that, but they only actually took the step officially after they and Britain had been fighting a war for over a year. The South seceded long before Lincoln was even inaugurated. And the South not only had representation in the US government, they had actually been historically overrepresented, and it was only the the recent past that their stranglehold over that government was broken. IE the colonists were breaking away from a government they had no say in. The South was trying to break away from a government that they no longer totally controlled.

2-The south knew that if he won they would be fucked over. The north could have helped the south move away from needing slavery so much. Yet where did all the railroads go. The north. The south may of had the slaves pick the crops but it was the north that made the real money from them. The union is just as bad as the south was and winning the war doesn't remove them from making money off of the slaves. It just means that bit is edited out of our history books.

Well that's an actual Lost Cause argument, which kinda puts the rest of what you've said in perspective.

3-I will admit I don't know about how people waged wars in the 1800s but is killing people who were trying to kill you really a crime? From my understanding POW more or less just waited to be returned to their side. I know that the south had places that the Union troops were worked really hard but I'm unsure if that was a war crime yet. Hell, I'm not even sure such a thing even existed in 1861-1865.

So you literally just have no idea what you're talking about, and don't care enough to check. Got it. From the cabinet meeting which occurred afterward: "Stanton fell in with my suggestion, so far as to propose that, should Forrest, or Chalmers, or any officer conspicuous in this butchery be captured, he should be turned over for trial for the murders at Fort Pillow". The laws of war at the time actually said quite clearly that the Union would have been completely within their rights to take an equal number of Confederate POWs out and shoot them. Lincoln had in fact put this fact into writing: "It is therefore ordered that for every soldier of the United States killed in violation of the laws of war, a rebel soldier shall be executed; and for every one enslaved by the enemy or sold into slavery[,] a rebel soldier shall be placed at hard labor on the public works, and continued at such labor until the other shall be released and receive the treatment due to a prisoner of war."

4-What crimes are you implying here? Fighting for one's nation or home? I don't think that's a crime. What did Lee do that should see him killed? Because I know of nothing that should see him killed. But I will admit that I haven't really looked into the war besides in a school textbook over 13 years ago.

How about how in Lee's invasion of the North his army, with his approval, kidnapped free blacks and sent them south to be sold into slavery? You know, part of what caused the above order by Lincoln to be issued.

And how many people care about such an idea? Nobody. The winner matters not the losing side.

Literally millions. The Lost Cause is a myth that is alive and well throughout the south.

 

[Cymry-Korean]

The United States broke away from Britain because it was not, and could not, be represented in the British government, and as such according to British political theory, Parliament had no legal authority over them. Sure Parliament didn't like that interpretation, but it was still perfectly in line with British tradition. What's more, the US only broke away AFTER it was attacked by Britain, and had been declared to be in rebellion by them. Sure a lot of Americans wanted to break away before that, but they only actually took the step officially after they and Britain had been fighting a war for over a year. The South seceded long before Lincoln was even inaugurated. And the South not only had representation in the US government, they had actually been historically overrepresented, and it was only the the recent past that their stranglehold over that government was broken. IE the colonists were breaking away from a government they had no say in. The South was trying to break away from a government that they no longer totally controlled.


Well that's an actual Lost Cause argument, which kinda puts the rest of what you've said in perspective.

So you literally just have no idea what you're talking about, and don't care enough to check. Got it. From the cabinet meeting which occurred afterward: "Stanton fell in with my suggestion, so far as to propose that, should Forrest, or Chalmers, or any officer conspicuous in this butchery be captured, he should be turned over for trial for the murders at Fort Pillow". The laws of war at the time actually said quite clearly that the Union would have been completely within their rights to take an equal number of Confederate POWs out and shoot them. Lincoln had in fact put this fact into writing: "It is therefore ordered that for every soldier of the United States killed in violation of the laws of war, a rebel soldier shall be executed; and for every one enslaved by the enemy or sold into slavery[,] a rebel soldier shall be placed at hard labor on the public works, and continued at such labor until the other shall be released and receive the treatment due to a prisoner of war."


How about how in Lee's invasion of the North his army, with his approval, kidnapped free blacks and sent them south to be sold into slavery? You know, part of what caused the above order by Lincoln to be issued.


Literally millions. The Lost Cause is a myth that is alive and well throughout the south.

Not just throughout the south. I see rebel pride and the "Confederate Flag", really the Flag of the Army of Northern Virginia, throughout Indiana, regardless of the fact that tens of thousands of Hoosier volunteers gave their lives for the Union.

Makes me sick.

 

[RiverDelta]

Land redistribution - expropriation- theft! Communism is un American.

Land redistribution has been done by many different nations throughout history, long before communism.

 

[Cymry-Korean]

Land redistribution has been done by many different nations throughout history, long before communism.

The Romans are Marxists now.

 

[9 Fanged Hummingbird]

Land redistribution was also unconstitutional, as the Constitution allows forfeiture only for the offender's lifetime, after which it reverts to his heirs.

I take it you also have a problem with Arlington National Cemetery? Precedent shows that appropriating land from traitors is okay in America.

So are you saying that had the US lost the war in the 1700s that the likes of Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and the countless others who had a hand in the United States breaking away from the motherland would be seen favorably? Because if so I would very much like to know why you think this. I don't see the king being willing to allow them to be seen in such a light. If anything he would ensure that if history books say anything it would be to not do what they did. Yet as we know we won so we view them as great men.

I honestly am having a hard time figuring out what you're trying to say, but if this is an attempt to compare the American revolutionaries to the Confederates then it falls flat because we don't honor the "Founding Fathers" for the act of secession but for their specific cause. Also, the "loser's history" isn't commonplace simply because the Brits don't like to linger on that war but there is a crowd of modern day revisionists trying to paint them as the good guys that's gained a lot of ground.

And how many people care about such an idea? Nobody. The winner matters not the losing side.

I was born in Georgia and I am still seeing "Heritage, not hate" stickers in New Hampshire, don't talk to me about "nobody cares about the Lost Cause".

 

[Mikestone8]

Well, the constitution was written by slave owners and this bit should be overturned.

IircThaddeus Stevens introdueced such a measure in June 1866.

It was defeated by the razor-thin margin of 126-37 - a trifle short of the majority needed to amend the Constitution.

 

[Amadeus]

Expropriation and exile.

I believe this is what Lincoln wanted before he was assassinated.

 

[marcinL]

Land redistribution has been done by many different nations throughout history, long before communism.

Like in USA which was built on redistributing the land from the natives to the settlers

 

[Mikestone8]

I take it you also have a problem with Arlington National Cemetery? Precedent shows that appropriating land from traitors is okay in Americasee the following from wiki.

See the following from wiki

The government acquired Arlington at a tax sale in 1864 for $26,800, equal to $443,454 today.[19] Mrs. Lee had not appeared in person but rather had sent an agent, attempting to pay the $92.07 in property taxes (equal to $1,523 today) assessed on the estate in a timely manner.[20] The government turned away her agent, refusing to accept the tendered payment. In 1874, Custis Lee, heir under his grandfather's will passing the estate in trust to his mother, sued the United States, claiming ownership of Arlington. On December 9, 1882, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5–4 in Lee's favor in United States v. Lee, deciding that Arlington had been confiscated without due process.[20][21] After that decision, Congress returned the estate to him, and on March 3, 1883, Custis Lee sold it back to the government for $150,000 (equal to $3,535,000 in 2021) at a signing ceremony with Secretary of War Robert Todd Lincoln.[19][22] The land then became a military reservation.[23]

 

[Admiral Spaun]

Like in USA which was built on redistributing the land from the natives to the settlers

There's a bit of a difference between redistributing land to poor/ previously enslaved people from the estates of criminals and committing genocide against native americans to gain their natural resources.

 

[DennisMSullivan]

What is this revenge fantasy time?
The nation needs to be reunited.
There is another problem.
By 1877, the north was tired of fighting the south for decades. So they ended reconstruction, and threw black people under the bus.
The army needed to stay in the south indefinitely to protect black people.

 

[jmc247]

Both Northern and Southern opinion would have denounced that .Northern radicals were offering to defend Davis and Lee was universally respected as the officer and gentleman he was.

Quite a few people in the North sent Lee letters during the war. He would reply to a few, most often the kids. Then local newspapers would catch wind of it and send out a reporter and it would often end up in the closest local paper like the NY Times below. In that way the public during the war typically knew his opinions.

Spoiler

The following is a letter written by the now rebel Gen. LEE, to a young lady in the North, who, before the estrangement had altogether taken place, had asked him for his photograph. He would not sit for it, but Mrs. LEE having some, sent one to the young lady. This explains what would otherwise be obscure in the opening of the letter:

RICHMOND, May 5, 1861.

MY DEAR LITTLE H -----: I am very grateful for your kind letter, and the cordial expressions it contained. You are not only welcome to that severe representation of me, but anything else you may fancy. I pray you will not exhibit it however, as it will only serve to bring down denunciations on my head. You, I hope, will make allowances for my position and failings, and think as kindly of me as you can.

I shall never forget you, and require no work of art to keep you vividly before me. It is painful to think how many friends will be separated and estranged by our unhappy disunion. May God reunite our severed bonds of friendship, and turn our hearts to peace. I can say in sincerity that I hear animosity against no one. Wherever the blame may be, the fact is, that we are in the midst of a fratricidal war. I must side either with or against my section of country. I cannot raise my hand against my birth-place, my home, my children.

I should like, above all things, that our difficulties might be peaceably arranged, and still trust that a merciful God, whom I know will not unnecessarily afflict us, may yet allay the fury for war.

Whatever may be the result of the contest, I foresee that the country will have to pass through a terrible ordeal, a necessary expiation, perhaps, of our national sins.

May God direct all for our good, and shield and preserve you and yours.

Very truly and sincerely, R.E. LEE.

https://www.nytimes.com/1861/08/06/archives/the-rebel-gen-lee.html

I noticed a trend with some historians that seem to conflate the more caustic shall we say wartime messaging of the time with actual wartime views. I find the opinion pages in newspapers are a better record of opinions as the ordinary people tended to fluff off the presentation of each other as devils as propaganda.

Spoiler

 

[Orko]

They, genuinely believed the US was waging an illegal war against them. To put it bluntly, if the president and the dominant party are a bunch of traitors, well, do you owe them loyalty.

"I genuinely believed I was acting legally even though it turns out I wasn't" isn't a great legal defence. If you deliberately kill someone, you can't claim at court that you genuinely believed this guy was horrid and the world would be better off without him. Unless you're acting in self defence, that would be murder.

 

[DracoLazarus]

Well, as far as I'm concerned, anyone who served above... Let's say colonel rank in the Confederate army; anyone who entered the secessionist states' legislatures post-secession or who voted for secession; and all people in positions of power in the Confederate government, should be made permanently ineligible as a matter of principle.
After which, they will be individually put on trial and tried according to Federal law for the offenses they committed. Treason as a whole would IMO be applicable to all of them anyway.
And if you get cold feet on executing them, give them a ten-year sentence in a prison in Death Valley. Same as executing them, but without the publicity.