Carpet Baggers, Scallywags, and Redeemers

Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
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
Actually they did and have, that's not to say by 1960 there wasn't a significant minority still in opposition.

If someone try's to overplay a poor hand they can't support, the blame rests with those who overplayed the bad hand with no support. Its called being realistic....

The Democratic party didn't impliment anything, they represented the status quo, which is what the majority wanted, hence they won.

If Republicians had indeed wanted civil rights, and to be successful, they needed a Freedman's Bureau pushing northern immigration......but they didn't, we can guess why. But as long as 90% of blacks lived in 12 states that were over 60% white and predominantly Democrat........you would indeed need to cater to those 60%.

Northern Republicians overplayed their hands with reconstruction as much as Southern Democrats overplayed their hands with secession.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
Because that's the illusion and why terrorism is so persistent......putting in alot of troops merely makes them lay low.......it's doesn't defeat or actually change anything at all.......or it wouldn't reemerge as soon as troops are removed. And I certainly don't think the founders, Lincoln, or the American people envisioned or supported a military occupation lasting decades or centuries.....the goal of reconstruction envisioned by most was actually to avoid that by restoring the pre-war states to pre-war civil governments and get the military out of it. Grants KKK act was the begining of the end of reconstruction.

You also seem to ignore the majority of the north hadn't accepted racial equality either, as the second klan will be strongest in states like Ohio and Indiana, as blacks do start moving north there will be racial riots in northern cities......and in the end segregation will be rife in northern cities. And ultimately military reconstruction fails, not from lack of southern support as there never was much.......but from a lack of northern support to continue it.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
The dictionary definition of Civil Disobedience includes the caveat that it is non-violent. Lefty is correct on that accord.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/civil-disobedience
Again modern semantics, because unless one truly beleives riots, revolution and terrorism are civil obedience.......they would in fact and reality be civil disobedience. Again as they are indeed forms of disobedience to authority and law.

I would suggest looking up the defination to civil.....and then disobedience. As they are in reality two words, not one.

Looking at civil.....of the ordinary people, not the military.....

Looking at disobediance.....failure or refusal to obey rules or authority..

Neither word actually have peaceful in them......but would simply refer to failure or refusal to obey rules or authority by the people....which indeed violent resistence still is.......
 
Last edited:

GwilymT

Sergeant Major
Joined
Aug 20, 2018
Location
Pittsburgh
Again modern semantics, because unless one truly beleives riots, revolution and terrorism are civil obedience.......they would in fact and reality be civil disobedience. Again as they are indeed forms of disobedience to authority and law.

I would suggest looking up the defination to civil.....and then disobedience. As they are in reality two words, not one.

Looking at civil.....of the ordinary people, not the military.....

Looking at disobediance.....failure or refusal to obey rules or authority..

Neither word actually have peaceful in them......but would simply refer to failure or refusal to obey rules or authority by the people....which indeed violent resistence still is.......
Take your argument to Merriam Webster. For now, I’ll stick with them as the authority on what words and terms mean.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
Take your argument to Merriam Webster. For now, I’ll stick with them as the authority on what words and terms mean.
No you need to, as they agree with me as I correctly use it as a adjective and noun.

Yet again using your dear merriam webster.

Civil-adj-of or relating to the citizens...
Disobedience-noun-refusal or neglect to obey.

So a violent refusal to obey by citizens.....is indeed a form of civil disobedience by their own defination of the actual words.....

But thanks for a rather meaningless distraction over what they indeed define the two words as. But I correctly used it as an adjective describing a noun. As neither word are exclusive at all to peaceful in their meaning.
 
No you need to, as they agree with me I correctly use it as a adjective and noun.

Yet again using your dear merriam webster.

Civil-adj-of or relating to the citizens...
Disobedience-noun-refusal or neglect to obey.

So a violent refusal to obey by citizens.....is indeed a form of civil disobedience by their own defination of the actual words.....as neither word are exclusive to peaceful, which frankly I allready was aware of the meaning of the adjective and noun in the way I used them.

I'm not making a judgement; only passing on a pretty good article about "Civil Disobedience" from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy to both you and @GwilymT :

Civil Disobedience
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/civil-disobedience/
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
I'm not making a judgement; only passing on a pretty good article about "Civil Disobedience" from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy to both you and @GwilymT :

Civil Disobedience
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/civil-disobedience/
I agree it's a popular term with popular meaning when used together. But the reality is that doesn't change the meaning of the two words as I used them, which was an adjective describing a noun. The two words do indeed still have individual meaning, and can certainly be used that way.

And it's not surprising to me it says attaching nonviolent to civil disobedience is controversial.

"Non-violence: A controversial issue in debates on civil disobedience is non-violence."

I would agree that view or use of it as a defining parameter is hardly universal....indeed would be why I don't make such a assertion.
 
Last edited:

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
Actually they did and have, that's not to say by 1960 there wasn't a significant minority still in opposition.

If someone try's to overplay a poor hand they can't support, the blame rests with those who overplayed the bad hand with no support. Its called being realistic....

The Democratic party didn't impliment anything, they represented the status quo, which is what the majority wanted, hence they won.

If Republicians had indeed wanted civil rights, and to be successful, they needed a Freedman's Bureau pushing northern immigration......but they didn't, we can guess why. But as long as 90% of blacks lived in 12 states that were over 60% white and predominantly Democrat........you would indeed need to cater to those 60%.

Northern Republicians overplayed their hands with reconstruction as much as Southern Democrats overplayed their hands with secession.
The federal government just didn't have the resources to combat white terrorism in the South. I have quoted many time from " George Thomas Virginian for the Union" Thomas's frustration that he lacked enough men especially cavalry to combat the white terrorists.
Leftyhunter
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
The federal government just didn't have the resources to combat white terrorism in the South. I have quoted many time from " George Thomas Virginian for the Union" Thomas's frustration that he lacked enough men especially cavalry to combat the white terrorists.
Leftyhunter
Which goes to what I mentioned in a PM, there wasn't alot of enthusiasm even in the North to continue or ramp up a military occupation.....the war was over, had been for 8 years by 1873. America has always had a rather short attention span post wars.

Military Reconstruction ends because the North abandons it. As personally I would say they realized it wasn't sustainable indefinitely. And politically it was becoming evident the Radical Republicians were losing their strength. Would think their decline would be in part to little enthusiasm for continued punitive measures on southern whites, after all most northerners had returned to communities and life little different then had pre-war, they were moving on from the war.
 
Last edited:

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
Which goes to what I mentioned in a PM, there wasn't alot of enthusiasm even in the North to continue or ramp up a military occupation.....the war was over, had been for 8 years by 1873. America has always had a rather short attention span post wars.

Military Reconstruction ends because the North abandons it. As personally I would say they realized it wasn't sustainable indefinitely. And politically it was becoming evident the Radical Republicians were losing their strength. Would think their decline would be in part to little enthusiasm for continued punitive measures on southern whites, after all most northerners had returned to communities and life little different then had pre-war, they were moving on from the war.
Or in other words the issue of civil rights for all got thrown under the bus.
Leftyhunter
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
Or in other words the issue of civil rights for all got thrown under the bus.
Leftyhunter
In any democracy or democratic republic if all is not looking possible or likely, and if a choice being made becomes felt necessary by those making such choices......it's indeed likely to return to the Captain Spock philosophy, which indeed is often applicable.

 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
And in the north it started under the bus as most northern states had less then 5% black population, their was little need for intimidation in the north until black immigration became large at turn of the century, They started with rather complete utter domination over blacks in their states politically and in legal system.......the same thing southern whites were working for.
 
Last edited:

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
And in the north it started under the bus as most northern states had less then 5% black population, their was little need for intimidation in the north until black immigration became large at turn of the century, They started with rather complete utter domination over blacks in their states politically and in legal system.......the same thing southern whites were working for.
Not really my high school was fully intergrated well over a hundred years ago. We didn't require federal troops to do so. Some Northern states never had miscegenation laws. Discrimination was not equal among the states. I didn't know Leonard Nimoy favored racial discrimination. I kind of doubt he did.
Leftyhunter
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
Leonard Nemoy personally or racial discrimination? Has little to do with my remark on the historical decision at all.......

However if one was a northern politician in 1873...who wanted to remain a politician as it's obvious Radical Republicans are waning.....remembering the needs of the many...outweigh the needs of the few would probably help job security.

Because one shouldn't forget the constituency for their reelection wasn't a nearly equal Louisiana at all......but the overwhelmingly white state they represented. An aspect of a republic oft overlooked. While a senator or representitive is making national decisions.......they aren't representing the nation, but the one state that sent them, and a good politician is mindful of that.

That's something for example I do give credit to men like Lincoln......regardless of his personal opinion, he was rather measured and mindful he wasn't representing just himself and his own opinion.
 

atlantis

Sergeant Major
Joined
Nov 12, 2016
The majority of whites north and south at the time did not think blacks belonged in the country much less be given citizenship. How best to help the freedmen is an unanswered question.
 

Bruce Peek

Cadet
Joined
Jun 28, 2020
Every single one of all of you people who contemplate for a moment defending racist white terror against African American freedmen is as complicit as those whites who went along with campaigns of disenfranchisement against Blacks in post civil war America! Period. Our current suffusion into endless social protest is but a fraction of the reckoning that has been paid for slavery. The American Civil War was in the end all about ending slavery. The Confederacys ' political and military leadership from Jeff Davis to James Longstreet said as much. As did the secession statements of the states that ended up in the Confederacy. It was after the war, when the former slave owners were confronted with the casualty list and they had to justify the stupidity of their elitist political control that they invented the justification of states rights, and Tariffs etc. etc. As to how best to help the freedmen- why how about political and legal equality with so called white people, the right to vote, the right to free speech, the right to peaceably assemble for redressing grievances, the right to politically organize free of violent repression at the hands of the former slave owners.
best wishes
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
Every single one of all of you people who contemplate for a moment defending racist white terror against African American freedmen is as complicit as those whites who went along with campaigns of disenfranchisement against Blacks in post civil war America! Period. Our current suffusion into endless social protest is but a fraction of the reckoning that has been paid for slavery. The American Civil War was in the end all about ending slavery. The Confederacys ' political and military leadership from Jeff Davis to James Longstreet said as much. As did the secession statements of the states that ended up in the Confederacy. It was after the war, when the former slave owners were confronted with the casualty list and they had to justify the stupidity of their elitist political control that they invented the justification of states rights, and Tariffs etc. etc. As to how best to help the freedmen- why how about political and legal equality with so called white people, the right to vote, the right to free speech, the right to peaceably assemble for redressing grievances, the right to politically organize free of violent repression at the hands of the former slave owners.
best wishes
And anyone who confuses recognising and acknowledging the actual historical realities in a historical discussion as "defending racist white terror" would be rather delusional.

As history isn't what you wish was....but what actually was.

Events in 1860-1870 were driven by the attitudes and views of the majority of the regions at that time....doesn't make the majorities then "right" to us today, but is certainly relevant to understanding and explaining the how and why events occured then.

As isn't history actually recognizing what acually occured, then impartially examining the actual events, participants, and prevailing views of the time?
 
Last edited:

atlantis

Sergeant Major
Joined
Nov 12, 2016
What percentage of scallywags were former confederates and did any southern unionists become redeemers.
 

Joshism

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Location
Jupiter, FL
Carpet Bagger: A person from the north who moved south to aid the Freedmen

There are essentially four kinds of Northerners who moved South in the decades after the war.

1. Those motivated to help Freedmen.

2. Those motivated to exploit the situation for profit. Land speculators, scam artists, unscrupulous businessmen, and other avaricious capitalists.

3. Those motivated to help the South in general, and white Southerners in particular, improve through improved infrastructure and expanded education.

4. Those who simply wanted a warmer climate than the north or were otherwise in it for personal reasons without interest in helping or exploiting. They were moving to sparsely settled areas as they would any other frontier.
 
Top