>The following is part of a pathetic appeal to Congress made by a group of Kentucky blacks in 1871:>"We believe you are not familiar with the description of the Ku Klux Klans riding nightly over the country, going from county to county, and in the country towns, spreading terror wherever they go by robbing, whipping, ravishing, and killing our people without provocation, compelling colored people to break the ice and bathe in the chilly waters of the Kentucky River.">"The state legislature has adjourned. They refused to enact any laws to suppress Ku Klux disorder. We regard them as now being licensed to continue their dark and bloody deeds under cover of the dark night. They refuse to allow us to testify in the state courts where a white man is concerned. We find their deeds are perpetrated only upon colored men and white Republicans. We also find that for our services to the government and our race we have become the special object of hatred and persecution at the hands of the Democratic Party. Our people are driven from their homes in great numbers, having no redress except in the United States court, which is in many cases unable to reach them."
>>18427290No one will ever care, Tulsa Tranny.
>Reconstruction in the end proved a more grievous hurt to the South than losing the war itself and it remained a controversial and much debated subject. In the early 20th century, Columbia University historian William Dunning and his students published a series of essays about the Reconstruction era that were greatly influenced by the politics of the day, which favored sectional reconciliation and belief in black inferiority. They portrayed the South in a sympathetic light, arguing that Reconstruction had been a shameful disaster forced on a defeated, ruined region by corrupt, power-seeking Radical Republicans. For long this view was dominant in American historiography and especially in the 1920s-30s it was widely believed that the Civil War was a tragic mistake that didn't have to happen. The only important pre-World War II work to challenge the Dunning school was W.E.B. DuBois's "Black Reconstruction" (1935).>After the war things changed with the rise of the civil rights movement. Modern historians came to show more interest in the real problems of the freedmen, believing the Radical Republicans as idealists with good intentions instead of corrupt scalawags and carpetbaggers, and showed less sympathy for the defeated and defiant white South. Kenneth Stampp's "Era of Reconstruction" (1965) showcased the new school of thought.
>More recent scholarship has reinforced this viewpoint and focused on the early phase of Reconstruction in 1865-66, concluding that Lincoln would have been more sympathetic to the Radical Republicans than Johnson and if he'd lived likely would have pursued a more aggressive Reconstruction policy. Second, economic analysis have proven the radicals' claim that only a major transformation of Southern society could have secured fair treatment for the freedmen.
>>18427868They were right. Start shit, get hit.
>>18427345We do though.
>>18427868Not so sure. Lincoln did pocket veto the Wade-Davis Bill in 1864 which would have imposed harsh terms on the South and essentially treated it as a conquered enemy.
>>18427868America is the most antiwhite country on Earth. Federally-enforced White disenfranchisement in half of their country. Pure evil and Masonry.
>>18427868Lincoln, married to a Southern aristocrat from the Kentucky Bluegrass, with in-laws that served in the Confederate Army, who was notoriously pro-deportation up until his dying days and wanted to send all the freedmen to Haiti, Liberia or carve some new republic for them out west, was going to side with a bunch of New England racial integrationists who themselves couldn't even convince other New Englanders to side with them in the end? Color me skeptical. That recent scholarship seems shoddy. You'd have to change most everything about Lincoln's life for him to wind up that way.
>>18427290Kentucky did not secede and wasn't subject to military Reconstruction, but the state was not happy about the abolition of slavery and the KKK was quite active there. The Force Acts were less successful in stamping them out than in the Deep South because KKK members were small guerilla bands and not centrally organized forces.
>>18428020Tennessee wasn't subject to military reconstruction either. Both were subject to civil reconstruction though, and Freedmen's Bureaus, and KY was practically under a military dictatorship from 1862-1865, which turned basically all Southern Unionists in Kentucky into come lately secessionists. In KY after the war, the 35,000 or so former Confederate soldiers and those who organized the Russellville Convention (KY's extra-legal secession convention that appplied to and was admitted to the Confederacy) controlled the state until their deaths and were voted in by ex-Unionists.
Tennessee was the only Southern state to approve the 14th Amendment without it being imposed at bayonet point and were rewarded by not being subject to military Reconstruction. It was also for many years the only of the eleven former Confederate states which recognized Lincoln's birthday as a national holiday.
>>18428020they had been operating under the delusion that by not seceding they would somehow be allowed to keep their slaves
>A large part of the problem lay in the accidental president Andrew Johnson. Born in North Carolina in 1808, he moved to Tennessee as a youth and was illiterate until age 16 when his schoolteacher and future wife taught him to read. Having grown up in poverty, Johnson nursed a lifelong class envy of the plantation aristocracy and eventually emerged as a voice for the lower classes of his state. A powerful stump speaker, he gave rabble-rousing addresses before crowds to the occasional sound of a gun being cocked.>Johnson was elected to the Senate in 1857 and gained notoriety, the praise of Republicans, and the condemnation of Southerners for his refusal to secede along with his state. In 1862, Lincoln rewarded him with the post of military governor of Tennessee, which he ably carried out in dangerous conditions. During the 1864 presidential election, it seemed necessary to add a war Democrat to the Republican ticket as an olive branch to Northern Democrats, and Johnson was the obvious choice.
>>18428034The position of the Kentucky government in 1861 wasn't that unreasonable. They knew that slavery couldn't be touched where it exists by the federal government, and they similarly knew that the desert southwest wasn't ever going to be a major slave economy in the same way the humid subtropical southeast was, so they saw little point in kicking up a hissy fit about the westward expansion of slavery.In fact many Southern Whigs were of this opinion, not just in Kentucky, but even some in the Lower South Cotton Belt. The Union, up until then, had done its utmost to preserve slavery in the South. There's also the fact that Kentucky was a tobacco state, and not a cotton state, by 1861, the cotton boom was a bubble that was inevitably going to burst as India and other alternative sources of cotton were fast opening up and most of the credit given to cotton planters wasn't even held by the North but by British banks. Tobacco states didn't have this problem, and so were more reluctant to take extreme measures to defend their chattel slave property that were used as collateral for loans. Regardless, 62 of Kentucky's then 72 or so counties met at the Russellville Convention and made an extra-legal secession shadow government, and there were tens of thousands of KY Confederate soldiers, and Union enlistment rates in KY were often very under numbered with high rates of desertion especially after the Emancipation Proclamation.
>But when Lincoln was assassinated a month into his second term, Johnson unexpectedly found himself thrust into the presidential chair. A profane, unbending, but not unintelligent man, he had some principles and convictions, but he was a Democrat in a Republican administration, a Southerner who did not understand the North, and an unelected president. Reconstruction was nearly doomed to fail in his tactless hands.>Johnson initially supported Reconstruction when he declared that secessionists would be visited with fire and hemp. He also supported disenfranchising anyone who had been in the employ of the US government and had decided to serve the Confederacy, while also adding that any Southerners who petitioned him might receive a presidential pardon. The requests started coming in and the pardons followed. At this juncture, Republicans in Congress panicked. They quickly moved to pass the 14th Amendment lest the South someday regain her Congressional delegation and repeat all acts of Reconstruction.
>>18428034Kentucky's business ties were mostly with Indiana and Ohio so they had an economic incentive to not secede. Around 20,000 Kentuckians served in the Confederate army and a high percentage of them came from the southwest of the state, an area known as the Little Confederacy. About 70,000 served in the Union army, although close to half that was actually black soldiers.
>>18428020in Missouri was similar. ex-Confederates took over the state once Reconstruction ended and created the fiction that it had been part of the Confederacy when secessionist support was mainly limited to the 24 counties that went for Breckinridge in 1860.
>>18428073The only Republican votes were from abolitionist Germans in St. Louis. After the war many Germans came to dislike black liberation as they acquired the strange idea that blacks were religious zealots who would attempt to get alcohol banned.
>>18428060The numbers are closer to 35,000 C.S, around 62,000 U.S (white). Kentucky's business ties had little to do with it; Kentucky's biggest trading partner city wise was New Orleans, it was more that Kentucky was surrounded on its border by free states and the C.S.A had no way to protect slavery in KY since slaves in KY had the easiest route to escape.
>>18428073>>18428073Kentucky and Missouri are totally opposite but in similar ways; Kentucky didn't have a large immigrant population like Missouri did, its Unionism was pro-slavery Southern Unionism, and while there were divisions among the population on who to side with basically everybody agreed with protecting the peculiar institution and Southern way of life, they just divided over what was the best way to do that. Missouri, on the other hand, had a large immigrant population, and was decidedly less "Southern" in its character/makeup. In Missouri, the war was really immigrants (foreign + northerners) vs southerners who had moved there a little before the immigrants arrived (mainly Kentuckians/Tennesseeans in "Little Dixie" and the Ozarks).
>>18428090Ironically though, some of the men most responsible for helping the St. Louis Unionists wallop on the secessionists were Southerners themselves (Blairs, mostly from KY/VA, and slave owners). But the Blairs were the rare gradual emancipationist type of slave-owner, a breed that had mostly died out in the South by the 1850s.
>>18428060slaves in the state were also mostly industrial and mining labor and not plantation workers
>>18428096This is objectively incorrect, where the fuck are you getting your information? Slaves in Kentucky were mostly plantation workers, and worked in the tobacco and hemp industry. Roughly 20% of KY's population was enslaved. Slaves weren't used in coal mining in Kentucky, at any point, but they were used in salt mining from time to time, but sparingly.
>>18428073some of those green counties especially on the southern border lay in the Ozarks and were sparsely populated back them
>>18428073The heaviest slave owning counties voted Constitutional Union, while the southern settled but not heavy slave owning counties voted Breckinridge. A similar pattern occured in Kentucky, where the plantation counties were Constitutional Union while the more sparsely settled counties in the east and far southwest voted Breckinridge. While Kentucky had a plantation economy, and Missouri hadn't quite developed one yet, the type of planting done in KY and MO was the same; hemp and tobacco. I
>>18428096
>>18428060the state's governor was pro-secession but the legislature was Unionist so he couldn't do anything. Missouri on the other hand had a secessionist state government that got evicted by the Blairs and Nathaniel Lyon and their governor sent into exile.
>>18428073>in Missouri was similar. ex-Confederates took over the state once Reconstruction ended and created the fiction that it had been part of the Confederacyit was also part of the lynching belt
>>18428107Missouri didn't have a secessionist state government. Less Missouri counties were represented at Neosho than Kentucky counties at Russellville, and the Russellville passed the secession ordinance near unanimously while Neosho people had to be locked in and "volunteered" to vote for secession. But yes, the Blair family and Nathaniel Lyon kept Missouri in the Union by swift action against Jackson's plot. Missouri overall gave less men to the Confederacy than Kentucky, but both Kentucky and Missouri arguably provided the best Confederate brigades in the Western Theater (the 1st Kentucky "Orphan Brigade" and the Missouri Brigade)
if you compare the election map for Kentucky one notices the obvious that the "little Confederacy" in the southwest voted for Breckinridge, but strangely the east which postwar became a Republican stronghold really voted for him.
>>18428111And like I said, the counties that held the most slaves voted overwhelmingly Constitutional Union, as you see, the ones along the western side of the Ohio River and in the Central Inner Bluegrass region. Mimics Missouri's "Little Dixie" where the highest slave concentrations were in MO that also went Constitutional Union. I think reading too much into the election of 1861 is barking up the wrong tree, it really doesn't show us that much. Maryland went Breckinridge, but only had 2 Confederate regiments raised during the war, a decidedly less impressive showing than Kentucky/Missouri besides both states similarly being under what de facto amounted to a Union military occupation too.
>>18427290So if both Kentucky and Missouri were divided border south states why did Kentucky remain so southern culturally/politically while Missouri drifted to being a kind of midwestern state with lots of lutherans and catholics and accents only in the far southeast of the state whereas in kentucky you'll hear them even right on the ohio river towns? Were all the Southerners kicked out of missouri during the war or something?
>>18428060the southern portions of Indiana, Ohio, and Illinois were also long known as South lite, they were Democrat-dominated during the postwar years in conteast to the rest of the states being Republican and later had active KKK chapters in them
>>18428115as he said, Missouri had a lot of German immigrants while Kentucky did not and retained most of its original Anglo population
>>18428116The historical term is "Butternut", in the war the "butternut doctrine" was a way to refer to copperheadism too. The Lower Midwest was heavily settled by Southerners, and you can even hear Southern accents there today. The Ohio River is less of a cultural border than most people realize, at least along its Kentucky stretch.
>>18428118This. In KY, only the towns that are right on the border with Cincy have significant German descended populations. Even Louisville's majority Protestant, and among that, majority Baptist/Methodist, despite getting some Irish/German Catholic migration in the 1840s/50s. Kentuckians leaned into Know Nothingism a lot more than Missourians did, and Bloody Monday scared most German immigrants away from Louisville and Kentucky in general given just how violent it was (lynch mob literally burned down a German/Irish catholic orphanage).
>>18428118few people talk about how 19th century german immigration was a cultural genocide of the original anglo populations of the northern united states
>>18428119they sound Southern in the Cincinnati area while the north of Ohio has nasal accents that sound Canadian
>>18428123Southeast Ohio has even thicker accents than Southwest. Go to Ironton or Galipolis and you'll see. People there sound like they're straight out of Tennessee. But once you get far north enough in the eastern half of Ohio, they start sounding like Pennsylvanians.
>>18428121not really true because most of them settled in the Midwest which was frontier country and just newly being settled. it would have been more accurate to say New Jersey was totally ethnically replaced since prior to the last 15 years of the 19th century it was a mostly rural Anglo stock backwater that was much more like Vermont than the state we know today.
>>18428114Baltimore was really the only pro-secessionist place in Maryland.
>>18428123>>>/mu/129942830If you will have read this thread, Doris Day was a Cincy native and had a definite drawl on her early records in the 40s although by the 50s she started using a generic Mid Atlantic accent.
>>18428126They also settled in already heavily populated Anglo places in the Lower Midwest unfortunately. New Jersey was definitely a cultural genocide too, though New Jersey was more like Delaware, Pennsylvania or Maryland style Quakers/Scots-Irish than like Vermont.
>>18428126>New Jersey now
>>18428138Case in point, skip to 4:18 and listen to this rural New Jerseyean (New Jerseyite?) speak. He's got a twangy accent with elongatede o's, which is very typical of Delaware Valley English, that you hear in Pennsylvania, Maryland and Delaware; his accent is what the true Old Stock American New Jersey accent is.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOG7HYf81cw
>>18428149You are missing the point. Its not that I'm some Anglo DNA supremacist or something, its that the Thirteen Colonies, and the base culture of America, happens to be Anglo derived, and where large numbers of Germans were let in, the culture went to hell and became a parody of itself. Germans in the 19th century were cancer on the body politic and our only saving grace is that we beat them up and lynched them until they were so scared to speak German publicly that they stopped. Totally deserved by the way.
>>18428152nta but if your point was to say they were proto-SJWs who backed abolitionism, it was not any worse than the Puritan-descended New England WASPs who were also proto-SJWs
>>18428159The South was settled by different people, it was more chud/redneck types (basically the current day British football hooligan is the distant cousin of the white Southerner) while New England was settled by middle class neurotics who had utopian beliefs.
>>18428116There were lynchings there too.
>>18428159nope, my point was they had a different culture, with different mannerisms, different assumptions, that while related were conflicting with both types of anglos (southern and northern) that settled the U.S>>18428164Yes, though also the South was settled by the non-neurotic English middle class too, who were more the adventurer type looking to make a quick buck; they became the planter aristocracy, while the hooligans became Appalachian hillbillies or Deep South swampbilles.
>>18428152>You are missing the point. Its not that I'm some Anglo DNA supremacist or somethingHow's the weather in Mumbai?
There was a German colony in central Texas, they refused to serve in the Confederate army and angered state authorities. Some of them were attacked by lynch mobs. After the war they became a Republican island in the Solid South.
It's also true that Germans and Irish at one time weren't considered white.
>>18428655Nope.
>>18428537Based.
>>18428073>>18428111>no chart for the colorsshit map
>>18428537>FIGHT FOR OUR NEGRO PETS YOU RETARDED GOLEMS!!!!I wouldn't fight either. Faggot southerners importing and breeding nogs is the reason for half the nation's problems.
>>18428695yellow=Constitutional Union, green=Southern Democrat, blue=northern Democrat
>>18428963thx
