• CobblerScholar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    The American South has been reeling since the years following the Civil War. The economic strength of the Southern States was so tied up in agricultural slavery. When that system was dismantled it left a big hole in the fabric of those states socially, economically, politically. All of that resentment never went away it just changed forms over the years and turned into law and public policy. It’s easy to forget that the Civil War was not that long ago, not in terms of human social development in any case.

    • Zorque@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It doesn’t help that we elected qn apologist who decided to welcome them back with open arms not so long after the Civil War. Instead of adapting to the situation they were in, post-war, they ended up sucking on the feds that while they got equal representation as the non-slave states.

      • BigNote@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s not what happened. Johnson became president when Lincoln was assassinated and at that time the president and VP didn’t run on a single ticket and instead the VP slot went to the presidential runner-up, who, of course, was from the opposition. So we didn’t really elect Johnson; we elected Lincoln, but John Wilkes Booth happened and he fucked us for generations.

          • BigNote@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Well the guy we elected after Johnson was Grant, and while he was an outstanding General, he was nowhere near as capable in the presidency where his authority, while great, was very different in kind from that of a military commander.

            There’s an argument to the effect that Grant was largely an absentee president who preferred to spend his days drinking as opposed to actually being the chief executive.

            I’m not a historian and don’t know enough about his presidency to have a strong opinion on it, but there’s no question that the policies that Johnson put in place, that allowed reconstruction to go so badly off the rails, weren’t competently addressed by the Grant administration, so in that respect your original point is not entirely incorrect.

            He also badly botched, mostly through a lack of attention, Indian affairs with regard to the powerful plains tribes. It was probably inevitable that said tribes would eventually be subjugated, but it certainly could and should have been handled more humanely.