Carpet Baggers, Scallywags, and Redeemers

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
Red Shirts were citizens who wanted free and fair elections with qualified voters. The carpetbaggers were outside interlopers who wanted to sway elections with unqualified voters.
Why weren't adult African Americans less qualified to vote then white people?
Leftyhunter
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
My Granddaddy called them "Outside Agitator's"
So your argument is that the vast majority of Southern whites were for full racial equality including voting and ending miscegenation laws and it was the fault of Northern outsiders that prevented full equal rights for all Southeners?
Leftyhunter
 

Rebel_Giratina

First Sergeant
Joined
Nov 30, 2014
Location
Sunny SoFla
Equal political rights was social engineering at warp speed by an occupying power. A recipe for disaster as the old political order will fight back to retain its power/position.
You know, I think that the best description of this whole mess I've seen in a long time. unfortunately, I don't see how Reconstruction could have gone any smoother or have been handled better. Something akin to the Marshall Plan after WW2, perhaps?
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
So it's the Northners fault for African Americans to be denied the right to vote?
Leftyhunter
G
Equal political rights was social engineering at warp speed by an occupying power. A recipe for disaster as the old political order will fight back to retain its power/position.
Either someone has equal rights or they don't. There is no justification for denying equal rights. It is true that the Republican Party abandoned the struggle for equal rights. That doesn't make the white racist paramilitaries hero's.
Leftyhunter
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
Either someone has equal rights or they don't. There is no justification for denying equal rights. It is true that the Republican Party abandoned the struggle for equal rights. That doesn't make the white racist paramilitaries hero's.
Leftyhunter
Actually there is if one believes in some civil disobedience theory that is used to excuse abolishionists criminal behavior.

Because if a southerner believed civil rights law were wrong, just as abolishionists believed slave or FSL laws were wrong.......they would be as just as bound and excused to defy them.

The whole civil disobedience theory is based on it's ones duty to defy laws they view unjust.....no matter how "fringe" their view is....

Why I've always found that argument rather hogwash......because if one actually believes it.....then in reality those you disagree with would be just as excused to do whatever also......which in reality nullifies law and order for anarchy.

Civil disobedience theory hinges not on what we think now, or even the majority at the time thinks........but on what the lawbreaker thinks.........it's a rather misguided shintoism
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
Actually there is if one believes in some civil disobedience theory that is used to excuse abolishionists criminal behavior.

Because if a southerner believed civil rights law were wrong, just as abolishionists believed slave or FSL laws were wrong.......they would be as just as bound and excused to defy them.

The whole civil disobedience theory is based on it's ones duty to defy laws they view unjust.....no matter how "fringe" their view is....

Why I've always found that argument rather hogwash......because if one actually believes it.....then in reality those you disagree with would be just as excused to do whatever also......which in reality nullifies law and order for anarchy.

Civil disobedience theory hinges not on what we think now, or even the majority at the time thinks........but on what the lawbreaker thinks.........it's a rather misguided shintoism
Civil disobedience is non violent which was hardly the case with Confedracy. There is absolutely no equivalence to waiting to be arrested and not resisting vs actively trying to kill as many of the other side as possible.
Leftyhunter
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
Civil disobedience is non violent which was hardly the case with Confedracy. There is absolutely no equivalence to waiting to be arrested and not resisting vs actively trying to kill as many of the other side as possible.
Leftyhunter
No civil disobedience is not non violent. Riots, guerrilla warfare, revolution are are all civil disobedience. It doesnt have to be few people singing Kum ba ya around a campfire at all.

Non violent can be a form, as can violent. Abolishionists used violence, threats and intimidation as well. What else would be a mob preventing a law officer from doing their duty.

Most the "protests" this summer wouldn't have been civil disobedience until they turned into riots.

One can see in threads here where people have tried to defend murder, theft, arson even treason with pre-war jayhawkers or John Brown......I'm simply pointing that same logic of excusing such behavior would then extend to others then who also felt they were doing right. Because it always strikes me odd to see someone condemning the same behavior that they had previously applauded........
 
Last edited:

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
No civil disobedience is not non violent. Riots, guerrilla warfare, revolution are are all civil disobedience. It doesnt have to be few people singing Kum ba ya around a campfire at all.

Non violent can be a form, as can violent. Abolishionists used violence, threats and intimidation as well. What else would be a mob preventing a law officer from doing their duty.

Most the "protests" this summer wouldn't have been civil disobedience until they turned into riots.

One can see in threads here where people have tried to defend murder, theft, arson even treason with pre-war jayhawkers or John Brown......I'm simply pointing that same logic of excusing such behavior would then extend to others then who also felt they were doing right. Because it always strikes me odd to see someone condemning the same behavior that they had previously applauded........
Civil disobedience as nothing to do with violent acts but refers to a type of politcal protest that started with Mahatma Gahandi well after the ACW.
Leftyhunter
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
Civil disobedience as nothing to do with violent acts but refers to a type of politcal protest that started with Mahatma Gahandi well after the ACW.
Leftyhunter
Again non violent is just one form. Any organized resistance to lawful authority would be civil disobedience though.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
G

Either someone has equal rights or they don't. There is no justification for denying equal rights. It is true that the Republican Party abandoned the struggle for equal rights. That doesn't make the white racist paramilitaries hero's.
Leftyhunter
Actually your making the argument for the redeemers.

Either someone or states has equal rights or they don't. Redeemers would have agreed with that. Redeemers were actually rather pro reconstruction.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
That's arguing that an apple is an orange since they are both fruits. Civil Disobedience has nothing to do with violent actions.
Leftyhunter
Actually violent disobedience is still disobedience so it rather obviously is apples to apples in disobedience remains disobedience.....odd when people had used the term in pre-war instances you never objected.....though it was also through violence and intimidation.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
All states did have equal rights except for people of color.
Leftyhunter
If they had there wouldn't have been military reconstruction and forms of martial law.......the redeemers were correct in that needed to end for reconstruction to be successful, and people from northern and southern states to indeed enjoy the same rights, liberties, and self government.

Different structures of government only being selectively applied by a federal government to certain states would hardly be equal. Nor would have been favoring one political party over another......there were no heroes in reconstruction, because if one is honest both sides goal was to try to disenfranchise the other sides. As time went on the Radical Republicians had to slowly relenquish their disenfranchisements so they lose. But then they would not have ever held power in the south if they hadn't massivily disenfranchised southern whites in the first place.......but the goal of a successful reconstruction would have been to end the disenfranchisement of those whites, wouldn't it?
 
Last edited:
Top