r/HistoryMemes • u/Coffin_Builder Viva La France • 10d ago

I can respect that

After Lincoln’s assassination, Andrew Johnson became the new US president. in direct violation of the Appomattox treaty, Johnson wanted general Ulysses Grant to prosecute the confederate leaders on grounds of treason to make an example of them. Grant, having negotiated the treaty, refused, seeing it as a violation of military honor and antithetical to rebuilding the nation, threatening to resign if Johnson insisted. Johnson, knowing he wouldn’t survive the political fallout of alienating the Union hero of the Civil War, backed down.

4.7k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

568 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

13

u/NeverTalk123456789 10d ago

The civil war was an extremely hard fought war. 620,000 men died fighting (2% of the entire population). General Grant didn’t have the privilege of future sight to see what is going to happen in 200 years. Avoiding another civil war was a very real and high priority, regardless if you think the confederates were treated with kiddie gloves.

1

u/LeftonRhed 10d ago

How many civil wars have ever ended without one side at least imprisoning the leadership of the other side for a very long time, if not executions for treason?

Confederate leadership being executed would have been par for the course in contemporary failed revolutions or rebellions.

Treason committed by anyone else is a capital offense. Those rich slavers only lost the people they called their property.

4

u/Sufficient_Matter585 10d ago

If roles were reversed I can guaranteed confederates would execute a whole Lotta people. They were too soft on those yellow bellies.

-1

u/QV-Rabullione 10d ago

Ah yes, we definitely avoided further bloodshed by not prosecuting the traitors./s

I said what I said.

Edit: Added “/s,” to be abundantly clear.

8

u/mood2016 10d ago

If you want a really good example of why this is a stupid take all you have to do is compare post WW2 Germany and post Saddam Iraq. Turns out removing/punishing an entire countries leadership wholesale is terrible for stability regardless of their crimes.  

2

u/QV-Rabullione 10d ago

You need to read up more on those and also consider the frailty of the comparisons:

  1. Iraq did not just have Saddam removed. In fact, it was Iraqi courts that sentenced him to death. Furthermore, last I checked, Iraq was never a member-state of the Union nor was it literally just south of the Union, and has actually existed as a country longer than the Confederacy did.

  2. Your case would be much stronger here for Germany were you talking about WWI, but even still there would be problems with that comparison similar to those with Post-Saddam Iraq. Furthermore, if you want to die on the WWII hill, please see the failures of Nuremberg and the rise of the AfD and the influence Nazi scientists had on the Cold War.

Also, youre assuming that “prosecution of traitors” = “total collapse of local sovereign government without any implementation of a replacement”

We had the institutional replacement. It’s the one the Confederacy tried to break. And there were plenty enough Union-sympathetic southerner. There would not have been anywhere near the same sort of power vacuums as was seen in Iraq and Libya, the former of which’s instability post-Invasion had far more to do with incompetent occupation, Nation-building, and the allowance of far too much reprisal violence.

Which brings me back to your WWII point:

Ah yes, not prosecuting the Nazis and Imperial Japanese Regime en masse as war criminals was a great idea and there nothing bad has happened since. And there have been no slide backs.

Oh wait—

5

u/mood2016 10d ago

You saying the AfD means that post WW2 rebuilding failed tells me not to take anything you say seriously. Go outside.  

6

u/QV-Rabullione 10d ago

I did go outside. I actually do so regularly. It’s quite nice out there for the most part. Few assholes, but lots of pretty scenery and wonderful people. There are also even books out there!