Carpet Baggers, Scallywags, and Redeemers

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
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.
You need to study those who actually practiced civil disobedience which had nothing to do with any form of violence.
Leftyhunter
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
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?
Southern whites weren't hanged or burned or forces to take menial jobs or jailed and forced to work based on false charges. All Southern whites were given the right to vote once they took a Loyalty oath. People of Color in the South would have to wait many decades post ACW to vote.
Leftyhunter
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
You need to study those who actually practiced civil disobedience which had nothing to do with any form of violence.
Leftyhunter
No I don't, as I have read of that form before, however civil disobedience was around well before Ghandi, as evidenced by the ARW and the ACW, because we had recognized a natural right of disobedience called revolution.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
Southern whites weren't hanged or burned or forces to take menial jobs or jailed and forced to work based on false charges. All Southern whites were given the right to vote once they took a Loyalty oath. People of Color in the South would have to wait many decades post ACW to vote.
Leftyhunter
That is so nonsensical on so many levels....

Whites were indeed also sharecroppers, laborers and dirt farmers.

Whites were also jailed, as all criminals are.

Whites would also be victims of being falsely charged or convicted.

Whites would also even be lynched for crimes.

And whites had also been completely disenfranchised when the elected civil governments were replaced by appointed ones.

If one honestly believes disenfranchising people is bad........there is no good side to reconstruction......because it in reality was two political parties doing whatever they could to disenfranchise or cheat the other.

The Republicians were able to win by doing so for a decade.....however as civil rights were restored, and in several cases the Republican methods so bad, they were overturned by courts, their power wanes.....as it never truly existed in the region to begin with.
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
That is so nonsensical on so many levels....

Whites were indeed also sharecroppers, laborers and dirt farmers.

Whites were also jailed, as all criminals are.

Whites would also be victims of being falsely charged or convicted.

Whites would also even be lynched for crimes.

And whites had also been completely disenfranchised when the elected civil governments were replaced by appointed ones.

If one honestly believes disenfranchising people is bad........there is no good side to reconstruction......because it in reality was two political parties doing whatever they could to disenfranchise or cheat the other.

The Republicians were able to win by doing so for a decade.....however as civil rights were restored, and in several cases the Republican methods so bad, they were overturned by courts, their power wanes.....as it never truly existed in the region to begin with.
Civil rights weren't restored they were reserved for whites of only. There is a good thing about Reconstruction because at least it was an attempt for equal rights in the South although it failed due to violence from racist groups. It's not that falsely accused people is equal.
No Southern state on its own accord granted civil rights.
Leftyhunter
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
No I don't, as I have read of that form before, however civil disobedience was around well before Ghandi, as evidenced by the ARW and the ACW, because we had recognized a natural right of disobedience called revolution.
The ARW and ACW were violent events that had nothing to do with the practices of Gandhi.
Leftyhunter
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
Civil rights weren't restored they were reserved for whites of only. There is a good thing about Reconstruction because at least it was an attempt for equal rights in the South although it failed due to violence from racist groups. It's not that falsely accused people is equal.
No Southern state on its own accord granted civil rights.
Leftyhunter
No it actually failed because one political party tried to impose itself on a region, where it in reality never had support. The United States was never intended to be a one party system, which is what reconstruction was orginally founded on. The complete disenfranchisement of opposition......it's not really surprising it fostered a resentment that would make it impossible for that party to maintain............ especially in light of the actual goal of reconstruction was the restoration of that region back into the United States....not for it to be occupied colonies indefinitely.

That's why the redeemers were actually more pro reconstruction, as they were for ending occupation and restoration of local civil authority and law.
.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
I would argue civil disobedience is actually incorporated into the United States principles, just not in the way people who ussually advocate it mean in illegal disobedience.......but in that you have a right to a jury of your peers. Which will ensure the local communities view of a law will be reflected.....and if the community doesn't agree with it, they aquit and practice jury nullification.

People tend to try to avoid admitting it, but jury nullification is both real and legal...and I would say the intended point of having a jury of your peers, as yet another check on goverment
 
Last edited:

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
I would argue civil disobedience is actually incorporated into the United States principles, just not in the way people who ussually advocate it mean in illegal disobedience.......but in that you have a right to a jury of your peers. Which will ensure the local communities view of a law will be reflected.....and if the community doesn't agree with it, they aquit and practice jury nullification.

People tend to try to avoid admitting it, but jury nullification is both real and legal...and I would say the intended point of having a jury of your peers, as yet another check on goverment
Jury nullification is not the same as risking arrest or violence and non violence was not practised in the US until after the ACW.
Leftyhunter
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
Jury nullification is not the same as risking arrest or violence and non violence was not practised in the US until after the ACW.
Leftyhunter
No as I said it is actually approved civil disobedience to protect a community against what they feel is unjust law. Such as when either the north or south tried to impose their views on the other.

The community simply aqquits no matter if they were guilty of violating the FSL or Civil Rights law, as the never wanted or agreed with the laws. And in both cases the local law enforcement would often be lax in even arresting the offenders as they agree with the community as well.
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
No as I said it is actually approved civil disobedience to protect a community against what they feel is unjust law. Such as when either the north or south tried to impose their views on the other.

The community simply aqquits no matter if they were guilty of violating the FSL or Civil Rights law, as the never wanted or agreed with the laws. And in both cases the local law enforcement would often be lax in even arresting the offenders as they agree with the community as well.
Civil disobedience has nothing to do with a legal process such has jury nullification. In civil disobedience people have to willingly face arrest and or violence and not fight back.
Leftyhunter
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
Civil disobedience has nothing to do with a legal process such has jury nullification. In civil disobedience people have to willingly face arrest and or violence and not fight back.
Leftyhunter
You have a poor understanding of civil disobedience......as any purposeful disobediance of a law/authority by the populace would in fact be civil disobedience . It can occur in many forms including violent or non violent, or legal or illegal. Jury nullification is indeed a legal form of disobedience or disregard for a law and the authority behind it.

Think it about it civil refers to the people...... disobediance to disregard to a law or authority.......civil disobedience certainly does not only encompass illegal or non violent... Despite modern connotations of non violent, revolution and terrorism are certainly civil disobedience to authority and law.

Unless you somehow equate revolution or terrorism to civil obedience........which I certainly don't and wouldn't.
 
Last edited:

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
You have a poor understanding of civil disobedience......as any purposeful disobediance of a law/authority by the populace would in fact be civil disobedience . It can occur in many forms including violent or non violent, or legal or illegal. Jury nullification is indeed a legal form of disobedience or disregard for a law and the authority behind it.

Think it about it civil refers to the people...... disobediance to disregard to a law or authority.......civil disobedience certainly does not only encompass illegal or non violent... Despite modern connotations of non violent, revolution and terrorism are certainly civil disobedience to authority and law.

Unless you somehow equate revolution or terrorism to civil obedience........which I certainly don't and wouldn't.
Civil disobedience as a term didn't even occur until well after the ACW. It very much involves modern politics and has nothing to do with the ACW. The Confedracy chose violent resistance and whined when they lost.
Leftyhunter
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
Civil disobedience as a term didn't even occur until well after the ACW. It very much involves modern politics and has nothing to do with the ACW. The Confedracy chose violent resistance and whined when they lost.
Leftyhunter
Wow rather misinformed as though it encompasses many forms, even nonviolent predates the Americas, even in the Americas Henry David Thoreau wrote an essay on civil disobedience in 1849...titled oddly enough "Civil Disobedience".......which oddly enough is before the civil war......

And no the ex-confederates moved on and reclaimed their rights postwar, those whining seem to be those championing the lost cause of a punitive military reconstruction.....which was defeated and ended.....as was necessary for national reconstruction to proceed.

But as I have pointed out that was rather inevitable, when one tried to appoint a political party in charge of a region.......that never had widespread support of that populace at all.

Reconstruction of the south was always going to have to entail working with the Democrat party, not Republicians, as they dominated the region, before, during, and postwar......if one allows for the historical parties flip flop, one could say even to this day.........as soon as Radicals tried to start reconstruction by alienating and disenfranchising the dominant party of the region......it was unsustainable long term, as they ensured little regional support.
 
Last edited:

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
Wow rather misinformed as though it encompasses many forms, even nonviolent predates the Americas, even in the Americas Henry David Thoreau wrote an essay on civil disobedience in 1849...titled oddly enough "Civil Disobedience".......which oddly enough is before the civil war......

And no the ex-confederates moved on and reclaimed their rights postwar, those whining seem to be those championing the lost cause of a punitive military reconstruction.....which was defeated and ended.....as was necessary for national reconstruction to proceed.

But as I have pointed out that was rather inevitable, when one tried to appoint a political party in charge of a region.......that never had widespread support of that populace at all.

Reconstruction of the south was always going to have to entail working with the Democrat party, not Republicians, as they dominated the region, before, during, and postwar......if one allows for the historical parties flip flop, one could say even to this day.........as soon as Radicals tried to start reconstruction by alienating and disenfranchising the dominant party of the region......it was unsustainable long term, as they ensured little regional support.
Thoreau may of talked the talk but it was well after the ACW that others walked the walk. Disenfranchising others through terrorism however popular the terrorists were does not make the terrorists right. The modern civil rights movement was very much due to failed Reconstruction but in the end guess who won?
Leftyhunter
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
Thoreau may of talked the talk but it was well after the ACW that others walked the walk. Disenfranchising others through terrorism however popular the terrorists were does not make the terrorists right. The modern civil rights movement was very much due to failed Reconstruction but in the end guess who won?
Leftyhunter
Disobedience whether violent or non violent doesn't make dissidents right. What makes anything right is the majority....as they define it.

In the end the US won, which is what a successful postwar reconstruction by ending occupation and the restoration of civil authority made possible. Because change only happens when the majority will accept it. Sometimes realizing the time isn't right yet is the proper course, over trying to push something that doesn't have the support to survive or be enforceable.
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
Disobedience whether violent or non violent doesn't make dissidents right. What makes anything right is the majority....as they define it.

In the end the US won, which is what a successful postwar reconstruction by ending occupation and the restoration of civil authority made possible. Because change only happens when the majority will accept it. Sometimes realizing the time isn't right yet is the proper course, over trying to push something that doesn't have the support to survive or be enforceable.
The majority of Southern whites never accepted racial equality. It wasn't that the timing was right or wrong the lesson of Reconstruction is that terrorism is very effective unless there is an counterinsurgency policy. When the Klan was opposed by effective state militas the retreated. When the federal forces withdrew then racist Democratic Party goverment's implemented racial discrimination.
Leftyhunter
 
Top