How would you have treated confederate leaders?

[Vincent]

How would you have dealt with the leaders of the Confederacy after the war ended in regards to punishment?
Should they have been put on trial for treason, hanged, imprisoned, completely let of the hook or would you have just done the same thing that already happened to them?

[PBrunsel]

I would have granted amnesty to all that pledged loyalty to the Union.

[The Man From G.O.P.]

I would have granted amnesty to all that pledged loyalty to the Union.

the same

[J. J.]

I would have granted amnesty to all that pledged loyalty to the Union.

Robert E Lee would have been in charge of Reconstruction.

[Vincent]

I would have granted amnesty to all that pledged loyalty to the Union.

Robert E Lee would have been in charge of Reconstruction.

Are your reasons practical or moral. As in do you think Lee was deserved the position or do you think he should have had it because southerners would have accepted him allowing the process to run easier?

[ilikeverin]

Robert E. Lee should have been given better treatment than other leaders.  Maybe not Reconstruction head, but perhaps a decent post in Reconstruction or something.

[The Man From G.O.P.]

Robert E. Lee should have been given better treatment than other leaders.  Maybe not Reconstruction head, but perhaps a decent post in Reconstruction or something.

bet thats not what the other democrat form minnesota will say

[patrick1]

Robert E. Lee should have been given better treatment than other leaders.  Maybe not Reconstruction head, but perhaps a decent post in Reconstruction or something.

Or you could dig up his land and put a cemetary on it...

[So the Heroes Fall]

had them shot for treason.

[A18]

And yet, you still insist you're not a Stalinist.

[Dr. Cynic]

Granted freedom and amnesty to all who pledged loyalty to the union, allowed all of the confederate soldiers to keep sidearms and animals, and only imprison those who would not pledge loyalty, but release them when they pledge thier loyalty.

[J. J.]

I would have granted amnesty to all that pledged loyalty to the Union.

Robert E Lee would have been in charge of Reconstruction.

Are your reasons practical or moral. As in do you think Lee was deserved the position or do you think he should have had it because southerners would have accepted him allowing the process to run easier?

Both.  

Lee freed his (well, his wife's) slaves prior to the Civil War.  He had problems with the morality of it;  because he had to provide for his former slaves, he had some idea of the transition process.  

He was revered in the South and could have led by example.

As States pointed out, the bulk of slaveowners did interact with all their slaves on a daily basis.  The South was "segregated" in the 20th Century meaning of the term.  That would have made it much easier.  The only real problem were the isolated plantation owners.  

Lee, in effect, was part of this class and could have reached out to it.  It coud have fashionable to work toward the "advancement" of former slaves.  I wonder what the South would have looked like.

[??????????]

had them shot for treason.

Yes and Lincoln was the first person to be executed under this rule.


Anyways, I doubt Lee would have been able to do anything in regards to reconstruction. He was in very ill health from 1864 onwards until his death in 1870. His birthday is coming up shortly as well. Jan 19th 1807.

[J. J.]

had them shot for treason.

Yes and Lincoln was the first person to be executed under this rule.


Anyways, I doubt Lee would have been able to do anything in regards to reconstruction. He was in very ill health from 1864 onwards until his death in 1870. His birthday is coming up shortly as well. Jan 19th 1807.

He was able to serve as president of Washington College.

[12th Doctor]

The same as they were treated in real life.

[Vasall des Midas]

More or less the same as they were in real life.
The two main things I would have tried to do different are:
-The US government attempted to collect back taxes for 1861-4. That was dumb and vindictive (although of course totally legal and "logical"), not to mention highly damaging to the Southern economy, which needed money pumped in, not out. Now that's an amnesty the South should have goten but didn't.
-The Freedmen should have been compensated (as was demanded by the most Radical Republicans, as well as the Freedmen themselves.) "40 Acres and a Mule" was the cry of the time, and I endorse it, also it needs some modifications (such as for the differing fertility of the country. Also, in the inland cotton country, cooperatives would likely have worked better than small individual holdings) I have no problem endorsing seizing of large plantations for the purpose.
With that program in place, the Blacks' defranchising after 1876 simply couldn't have happened, and the South's history since might have been much happier.

[Storebought]

The reason why Jefferson Davis never was put on trial for treason was that he would have argued, successfully, that the Constitution and the Declaration gave the states the implicit right to secede if the federal government overstepped its authority. 

[ATFFL]

The reason why Jefferson Davis never was put on trial for treason was that he would have argued, successfully, that the Constitution and the Declaration gave the states the implicit right to secede if the federal government overstepped its authority. 

Having Lincoln win an election was overstepping authority?

Most of the leaders of the Confederacy should have been allowed to take a loyalty oath and most of them should have been barred from ever holding a government office ever again.  This woudl have kept them out of power and also put their brainpower into the private sector of the south.

Freedmen should ahve been given homesteads in the west if htey wanted it or a cash equivalent.  This should have been paid for from the siezure of property from Confederates who would not take a loyalty oath and by the sale of all plantations to individuals.    This money woudl have also paid the missing back taxes.

[opebo]

I would have turned them and all Southern whites to the Southern blacks as slaves, in order to give them an opportunity to pay their debts and earn their freedom. 

[A18]

Yeah. And then after losing the war, you'd get hanged by your own men for being such a ing idiot.

[Storebought]

The reason why Jefferson Davis never was put on trial for treason was that he would have argued, successfully, that the Constitution and the Declaration gave the states the implicit right to secede if the federal government overstepped its authority. 

Having Lincoln win an election was overstepping authority?

No. The 1860 GOP campaign plank to halt the spread of slavery into the territories was, however, very clearly unconstitutional. That Lincoln was elected president made that unconstitutional campaign promise essentially a fait-accompli.

I would have encouraged the rapid industrialization of the South. Not only would that have alleviated the massive poverty resulting from the immediate release of the slaves (by 1860 the capital of southern plantations lay in the slaves themselves, and not the land or the crop), it would have weakend the social structures that made whites think of blacks as only bonded field labor in the first place.

As for the Confederate leaders, most (but not all, e.g. Nathan B Forrest) were reasonable and should have been given their citizenship after taking the loyalty oath and a probationary period. Even Jeff Davis's ex-slaves had no problem with a monument being built in his honour after his death in 1889.

[A18]

The reason why Jefferson Davis never was put on trial for treason was that he would have argued, successfully, that the Constitution and the Declaration gave the states the implicit right to secede if the federal government overstepped its authority. 

Having Lincoln win an election was overstepping authority?

No. The 1860 GOP campaign plank to halt the spread of slavery into the territories was, however, very clearly unconstitutional. That Lincoln was elected president made that unconstitutional campaign promise essentially a fait-accompli.

How in the world was that unconstitutional?

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

[Storebought]

The reason why Jefferson Davis never was put on trial for treason was that he would have argued, successfully, that the Constitution and the Declaration gave the states the implicit right to secede if the federal government overstepped its authority. 

Having Lincoln win an election was overstepping authority?

No. The 1860 GOP campaign plank to halt the spread of slavery into the territories was, however, very clearly unconstitutional. That Lincoln was elected president made that unconstitutional campaign promise essentially a fait-accompli.

How in the world was that unconstitutional?

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

Except that forbidding the spread of slavery was not a needful Rule or Regulation

[A18]

"Needful" is a very relative concept. Needful for what? I think it is implied that Congress can make rules and regulations that it deems "needful" for whatever purpose.

[The Man From G.O.P.]

had them shot for treason.

brtd really what the hell is the matter with you?