The thread of Liberal Stupidity


Nobody wants to destroy any memories, or anything taken down.

They want a new plaque planted near the statue. The only thing it can destroy is illusions.


We cannot ignore the practical concerns of how to deal with a huge insurgent population after a civil war.

I mean, you can’t just execute half the country, or punish them all. Such a choice means that you can never end the civil war until they are literally all dead.


Well, the executed Dakotas were part of a Native American rebellion. And the solution there was pretty close to killing or evicting them all. So yeah, you can make genocide work if you want to.


Especially when you’re dead. It’s really hard to do much about what actually gets done when you’re not alive.


Again, Lincoln’s policy of pardoning Confederates was established in 1863, when the Union had already made substantial progress in retaking the South.


Oh shit. One of my ancestors was killed by the Sioux in this war. He was a pretty horrible guy. All he ever did for social justice was make a few cavalry charges against the Confederates. He never made a single edgy social media post.

What can I do to atone for his sins? Is self-flagellation enough, or do I have to watch Dances With Wolves again?


Except that the population you were dealing with wasn’t nearly as large.


Plaques pointing out the history are what I think Dems should be pushing for now with the Confederate monuments, as a way to allow them to stand (which is the popular choice- most folks don’t want to take down the monuments) but avoid glorifying the Confederacy (which is the policy aim).


But you could (theoretically) litter DEADLY TRAPS throughout their spawning areas.

The 8th Amendment is still in place; the ACLU should be able to make sure that movie stays off your Netflix queue.


You could do this.


It’s not Liberal Stupidity, its appropriation of Liberal Stupidity. Sort of a “Build it and they will come”. Put the ideas out there and they will be used.

This is Safe Spaces in 2017.

{golf clap}


I think Robert E. Lee and Lincoln would probably disagree with you about that. Considering Gettysburg was in July of 1863 and the north didn’t exactly chase down Lee and destroy him any time soon after that.


Lincoln’s Proclamation of Amnesty and Reconstruction

The ten percent plan, formally the Proclamation of Amnesty and Reconstruction (13 Stat. 737), was a United States presidential proclamation issued on December 8, 1863, by President Abraham Lincoln, during the American Civil War. By this point in the war (nearly three years in), the Union Army had pushed the Confederate Army out of several regions of the South, and some rebellious states were ready to have their governments rebuilt …
All southerners except for high-ranking Confederate army officers and government officials would be granted a full pardon. Lincoln guaranteed southerners that he would protect their private property, though not their slaves. By 1864, Louisiana, Tennessee, and Arkansas had established fully functioning unionist governments…
The Radical Republicans opposed Lincoln’s plan, as they thought it too lenient toward the South. Radical Republicans believed that Lincoln’s plan for Reconstruction was not harsh enough because, from their point of view, the South was guilty of starting the war and deserved to be punished as such.


An interesting tidbit I stumbled across while researching my ancestors: In 1864 Forrest was complaining to the Union that after the Ft. Pillow massacre, black troops had vowed to no longer take prisoners. Gen. Canby wrote back to him saying that yes, that did happen. White officers hadn’t been part of making that decision but they fully supported it.

So no, the Civil War wasn’t all about white people hugging out their problems.


This was the part I was disagreeing with. If you call losing battle after battle progress then you would be right.


By the end of 1863 the Union controlled the capitals and major cities of Louisiana, Tennessee, and Arkansas, which basically means they controlled three of the eleven Confederate states. It had also repulsed the last major Confederate offensive into Northern territory. That’s substantial progress.


Well, I disagree. I think most historians do as well. But I am not going to keep up the back and forth.


Well, a list of potential turning points in the Civil War contains three Union victories in 1863 and several before then.

Or you could look at the contemporary wisdom of the crowd:

Southern morale was seriously affected by the twin setbacks of Gettysburg and Vicksburg, as they perceived that “the coil was tightening around us”. Some economic historians have pointed to the fact that after the defeats at Gettysburg and Vicksburg, the market for Confederate war bonds dropped precipitously. “… European investors gave the Confederacy approximately a 42 percent chance of victory prior to the battle of Gettysburg/Vicksburg. News of the severity of the two rebel defeats led to a sell-off in Confederate bonds. By the end of 1863, the probability of a Southern victory fell to about 15 percent.

And then there is the fact that Lincoln himself decided it was time to start planning for reintegrating the Confederacy.

But yeah, other than that no substantial Union progress in the war…


Really? Shitting on Lincoln, possibly one of the greatest leaders in the history of humankind, is the hill you want to die on?

I mean, I guess this is the thread for it.


Lincoln was a great President, and he made some mistakes. Pointing out mistakes is not shitting on someone, it’s an acknowledgement that they are human.

I have no interest in supporting a Lincoln cult of personality.