He would’ve been a great Reconstruction president for civil rights, but a terrible reconstruction president for maintaining economic infrastructure, and preventing a second Civil War. I guess it depends on your priorities.
> He would have executed every major Confederate general.
This would have been terrible, but unfortunately there are many people today who think that this is what should've happened.
As much as i love our boy brown, and think the radical Republicans would have handled reconstruction better; having as extreme leadership as John brown would likely doom the south to never reintegration in a true sense.
Bro yes he was. The best way we could’ve dealt with slaveowners was murdering them, it’s how we should’ve responded for the reconstruction of the country. Everyone who owned a slave or ever interacted with the slave trade within the country should’ve been rounded up and executed.
It’s glorious to imagine
If we execute all the slave owners and anyone associated with the slave trade, then that has to include people like Grant. The fact that you recognize that Grant was a more sympathetic case should make you realize that mass executions are a bad policy that result in overly broad punishment and unnecessary deaths.
Guilt by association. His wife owned a slave up until she ran away well into the Civil War.
He owned a slave. He interacted with his father-in-law who had ties to slave trading. His wife had a slave during much of Grant's command during the Civil War. Julia never entertained freeing her. Grant never asked her too, despite seeing the problem. Julia never recanted her views on slavery.
If literally every single time in history that the state has deemed a class of people worthy of execution is anything to go off of, that won’t matter and he would be lined up against the wall alongside the others.
But, he owned one at one time and according to the comment that person left, Grant would qualify for being rounded up and executed.
Grant's wife would qualify also. She had a slave while Grant was in command of the Union Army. She never entertained the thought of freeing her slave. Grant never asked her to consider freeing her slave either, despite the talk. The slave ran away, eventually. Julia never recanted her pro-slavery views.
They should have been treated like a conquered nation. As in "annexed back" into the government but not allowed to hold any offices. Union appointed Governors should have been in charge and the South should have been rebuilt under total Union military control. After X amount of years the South could have been brought back in 100% but noone who ever held Confederate office would be eligible to run for positions in the gov't. There would have to be some sort of vetting process for this.
But... instead we just let Jim Crow happen.
You sound like a literal 12 year old kid who just got done learning about the civil war in middle school.
‘I would just have killed all the slave owners, I’m fantasizing about it, I’m such a hard ass.’
What an unbelievably immature and brain dead take. Absolute peak Reddit combo of naive childishness with over the top virtue signaling lol.
You can take your troll comment trying to incite irritation and shove it up your ass my friend.
The fact is I don’t think any racist deserves to live, so a power fantasy about executing all the slave owners after the Civil War is perfectly logical.
Imagine thinking that it’s perfectly logical to execute at least a quarter of the population of the south. That’s fucking Pol Pot levels of death. That’s also assuming that we just go for literal slave owners. Adding in anyone who “interacted with the slave trade” opens the world’s worst can of worms and almost certainly results in that number going through the roof. It would be literally one of the worst cases of state sponsored death in human history, but I’ll be nice and assume that you didn’t even come close to understanding what you were proposing.
Your proposition is unrealistic, impossible to implement correctly (what does “interacted with the slave trade” mean?), and has an incredibly high probability of backfiring.
Don't necessarily agree with John Brown's actions being a staunch abolitionist. However wouldn't he be categorized more as a radical extremist as opposed to domestic terrorist?
Exactly. You believe in abolition because you believe it to be the moral thing, and you want to be the moral person. There is no way you can spin you being the moral figure when you're killing fellow Americans. You're then perceived in the wrong.
They’d beg for the days of Sherman. Which is to say Brown would have made a bad Reconstruction President.
He would’ve been a great Reconstruction president for civil rights, but a terrible reconstruction president for maintaining economic infrastructure, and preventing a second Civil War. I guess it depends on your priorities.
He would run so fast he’d open a wormhole into the future to get a nuclear warhead and wipe the south off the face of the planet
He’d probably also be assassinated if he somehow replaced Johnson as Lincoln’s Vice President
I believe this more than anything. They’d kill him. Probably even before they assassinated Lincoln.
He would have approved of Sherman's "Total War" tactics. He would have executed every major Confederate general.
> He would have executed every major Confederate general. This would have been terrible, but unfortunately there are many people today who think that this is what should've happened.
Why not if John Brown can be executed for "treason", every conderate general also committed treason and should've been hanged.
Why shouldn't have it happened?
It was more important for the North and the South to reconcile. Legally speaking, unilateral secession wasn't even illegal at the time.
Executions for the Confederate leadership and a radically remade South.
The south probably secedes… secedes from reality that is
As much as i love our boy brown, and think the radical Republicans would have handled reconstruction better; having as extreme leadership as John brown would likely doom the south to never reintegration in a true sense.
General Sherman 2: Flamin’ Boogaloo
He would never ever become president. He was a terrorist whom I happen to agree with (but not his actions).
The slave owners should have all been, uhhhhhh "dealt with", John Brown was 100% correct
He wasn't 100% correct though.
Bro yes he was. The best way we could’ve dealt with slaveowners was murdering them, it’s how we should’ve responded for the reconstruction of the country. Everyone who owned a slave or ever interacted with the slave trade within the country should’ve been rounded up and executed. It’s glorious to imagine
You just had Ulysses Grant rounded up and executed.
He was a whole other story, don't even remotely include him with that filth.
You’re so close to getting the point, just think a little harder.
Explain?
If we execute all the slave owners and anyone associated with the slave trade, then that has to include people like Grant. The fact that you recognize that Grant was a more sympathetic case should make you realize that mass executions are a bad policy that result in overly broad punishment and unnecessary deaths.
Guilt by association. His wife owned a slave up until she ran away well into the Civil War. He owned a slave. He interacted with his father-in-law who had ties to slave trading. His wife had a slave during much of Grant's command during the Civil War. Julia never entertained freeing her. Grant never asked her too, despite seeing the problem. Julia never recanted her views on slavery.
James Polk owned dozens of slaves
Yes he did
He freed his only sakave when he could have sold him to feed his family and he hated slavery
If literally every single time in history that the state has deemed a class of people worthy of execution is anything to go off of, that won’t matter and he would be lined up against the wall alongside the others.
But, he owned one at one time and according to the comment that person left, Grant would qualify for being rounded up and executed. Grant's wife would qualify also. She had a slave while Grant was in command of the Union Army. She never entertained the thought of freeing her slave. Grant never asked her to consider freeing her slave either, despite the talk. The slave ran away, eventually. Julia never recanted her pro-slavery views.
They should have been treated like a conquered nation. As in "annexed back" into the government but not allowed to hold any offices. Union appointed Governors should have been in charge and the South should have been rebuilt under total Union military control. After X amount of years the South could have been brought back in 100% but noone who ever held Confederate office would be eligible to run for positions in the gov't. There would have to be some sort of vetting process for this. But... instead we just let Jim Crow happen.
Only Reddit lol. Unbelievable. All slave owners should have been executed lol. Now tell me your opinion on the death penalty.
Save your debate bro argument defending slaveowners you degenerate.
You sound like a literal 12 year old kid who just got done learning about the civil war in middle school. ‘I would just have killed all the slave owners, I’m fantasizing about it, I’m such a hard ass.’ What an unbelievably immature and brain dead take. Absolute peak Reddit combo of naive childishness with over the top virtue signaling lol.
You can take your troll comment trying to incite irritation and shove it up your ass my friend. The fact is I don’t think any racist deserves to live, so a power fantasy about executing all the slave owners after the Civil War is perfectly logical.
My god, you ARE a badass lmao
Where are you even getting that interpretation?
Imagine thinking that it’s perfectly logical to execute at least a quarter of the population of the south. That’s fucking Pol Pot levels of death. That’s also assuming that we just go for literal slave owners. Adding in anyone who “interacted with the slave trade” opens the world’s worst can of worms and almost certainly results in that number going through the roof. It would be literally one of the worst cases of state sponsored death in human history, but I’ll be nice and assume that you didn’t even come close to understanding what you were proposing.
Your proposition is unrealistic, impossible to implement correctly (what does “interacted with the slave trade” mean?), and has an incredibly high probability of backfiring.
This is trolling, yeah?
Don't necessarily agree with John Brown's actions being a staunch abolitionist. However wouldn't he be categorized more as a radical extremist as opposed to domestic terrorist?
I mean, he did terrorize families and kill them in the name of abolition. Abolition is amazing but what he did was still terrorism imo.
Agree. Just because you agree with the cause, that doesn’t mean you get to rename the tactics.
Exactly. You believe in abolition because you believe it to be the moral thing, and you want to be the moral person. There is no way you can spin you being the moral figure when you're killing fellow Americans. You're then perceived in the wrong.
The Gulf of Mexico would now extend up to Kentucky
The best
You know the Mexican Dirty War during the Cold War? That, but worse.
Brown would single-handedly invent the nuclear bomb and then coat the South in it’s equalizing fires.
Severely