Completely agree with you on how Lincoln and Grant should have handled the leadership of the insurrection. Living in GA I still see daily reminders that some people still long for the good old days before the Civil War. And the flying of the confederate flag should have been outlawed like Germany did with the Nazi flag. Every time I see one flying here it makes my blood boil.
I lived in NE Iowa for a time, and there were folks who flew the confederate flag that far north, right below the American flag. Talk about complete delusion.
I'm originally from WA, and there were people flying it there. It was an area that was full of WV transplants that had moved there generations before to work in the woods and the sawmills.
Agree completely. I’ve been saying for a long time that we’re still recovering from, and maybe even fighting, the Civil War. Some people seem very confused about that statement.
“Merciless defeat - I don’t think that is the answer - reconciliation without justice - isn’t that what Nelson Mandela and bishop Tutu achieved “Truth and reconciliation” ? Those victim hearings acknowledged the injustice - violence is not the answer, we need a different solution, but first they (current administration) all need to be arrested and put in trial - I want to scream at the pain being inflicted on the world, these ignorant bastards have no understanding of the consequences of their actions - do not go down the dark road of annihilation - stay strong
Absolutely- I once had the pleasure of listening to Bishop Tito in London Uk, a truly magestic, magnificent spirit, he had such a presence - Truth always, otherwise reconciliation is useless -
July 7th of this year is the 160th anniversary of the hanging of four of the southern conspirators who plotted the murder of Abraham Lincoln. Mary Surratt, Lewis Powell, David Herrold, and George Atzerodt were executed on the grounds of the old District Jail in Washington, property which now forms the campus of the War College.
The principal conspirator—the man who shot Lincoln—was already dead. John Wilkes Booth had been run to ground after an extensive manhunt, and was fatally wounded in the ensuing gun battle. In all, only 84 days passed from the night Lincoln attended a play at Ford's Theater to the moment the platform traps dropped away beneath the gallows specially constructed for a different kind of drama held in the old jail yard.
It would great if we could get some relief from our current problems in as little time. Two weeks before his death, Lincoln had traveled to Virginia to meet with Grant and Sherman to discuss his ideas for the peacetime they all saw coming. Lincoln wanted a soft landing. No trials for treason, no executions. He envisioned reconciliation as the best way to heal the nation. Indeed, the old generals in blue, tough as they were, couldn't imagine hanging half of their old West Point classmates, and expressed as much to Lincoln.
The President may have envisioned defeated Confederate leaders quietly leaving the country to live in exile, but events proved otherwise. After a pause to catch their breath, the rebel generals fell in behind the Ku Klux Klan, the White League, and the Red Shirts during Reconstruction to wage war by other means.
President Jefferson Davis was indicted but never tried for treason. After awaiting trial for two years at Fort Monroe, Virginia, he was pardoned by President Andrew Johnson and released. Dr. Samuel Mudd, the Lincoln Conspirator who may have been innocent, was imprisoned at Fort Jefferson on a tiny sand spit in the middle of what is now The Gulf of America. With a little necessary carpentry, Fort Jefferson could once again serve symbolically as an American Elba. Since its location is easily reachable by modern yachts and power launches, not to mention helicopters, it would probably be the site of one cinematic rescue attempt after another, rendering its practical use for detention problematic. Perhaps a better destination for present day conspirators would be CECOT Prison in El Salvador. We already have an established account there, and, as of this writing, no rescue from that prison is possible.
I usually put this argument more succintly when I opine "Sherman should have burned Georgia again." Can't disagree with the general sentiment. On the other hand, there was the concern of ongoing guerilla warfare, quite legitimate, and its hard to second guess these decisions. Maybe, had Lincoln lived, things would have gone better. Maybe if Grant had got his third term, things would have gone better. Etc.
Add to this the many great areas of the law that people have been allowed to blur lines.
Thanks for this. It’s unfortunate to look so far back in our history and be able to draw clear lines. I often remark to myself that people often die with their philosophy intact. Few of us move past that unless forced. Those who would seek to blur the lines rarely do.
Your position would have been antithetical to the whole reason to fight that war: Lincoln was thinking Union and E Pluribus Unum, not revenge. Revenge is a profitless philosophy. Should we have dropped more bombs on Japan after their surrender? Really showed them the wrath that justice delivers? The Marshall Plan in Europe helped everyone. And justice, in all of its iterations, would include revenge, the very thing Trump is criticized for (as a character flaw). We must always be better than that. Are we? Or should we just carry on as Hatfields and McCoys? We object to the drama and chaos for which Trump is blamed, yet your position dovetails with a status quo of oneupmanship in leapfrog assault for the sake of justice. Don't be "nobody's fool," because nobody's fool is nobody's friend and, in fact, has no friends. As social creatures, this too is antithetical—to being human. Revenge, retribution, and "justice," as such, deteriorate our self-worth until...well...we can't be "better than that." When that happens, the bar is lowered until we turn on each other for provocations designed on-the-fly when convenient. Even brother against brother, like what happened when Lincoln re-soldered a wobbly, shaky Union.
Thank you for the thoughtful response. This is going to feel like a stinging rebuke, but take some comfort in this: I don’t write replies like this for just anyone. You’ve surfaced a set of ideas—and emotional undercurrents—that I suspect many readers feel. So I’m engaging directly, not because I dismiss your concerns, but because this is likely the most articulate version of these arguments we’ll see. And it deserves an equally serious response.
That said—respectfully—you’re conflating a desire for accountability with an appetite for revenge. And that distinction matters, deeply. Let’s walk through your points, because each one warrants scrutiny.
“Your position would have been antithetical to the whole reason to fight that war: Lincoln was thinking Union and E Pluribus Unum, not revenge.”
Lincoln was thinking Union, yes. But in doing so, he made a calculated gamble: that binding the wound quickly would heal the body politic. Instead, we buried the infection. Reconstruction was abandoned. White supremacists were pardoned. And the Confederacy rose again—not in name, but in policy, practice, and power. Mercy without justice isn’t nobility—it’s negligence.
“Revenge is a profitless philosophy.”
So is appeasement, especially when the other side keeps reloading. What you call revenge, I call the enforcement of norms and laws—what democracies rely on to function. We don’t prosecute crimes to feel good. We prosecute them so the next would-be tyrant knows the line is real.
“Should we have dropped more bombs on Japan after their surrender? Really showed them the wrath that justice delivers?”
No. But we did hold war crimes tribunals. We didn’t “move on.” We confronted atrocities, dismantled the militarist cult, and rewrote their constitution. Reconciliation wasn’t handed out—it was earned, and justice was its foundation.
“The Marshall Plan in Europe helped everyone.”
Yes—and it came after the Nazis were crushed, the SS disbanded, the generals tried, and the ideology outlawed. We didn’t send reconstruction funds while Göring was still giving speeches. Accountability came first.
“Justice, in all of its iterations, would include revenge…”
No. That’s a rhetorical sleight of hand. Justice isn’t revenge—it’s process, precedent, restraint, and moral clarity. If indicting a coup plotter feels like vengeance to you, you’re really arguing that power should be above consequence. That’s not justice. That’s surrender.
“We must always be better than that. Are we?”
If “being better” means turning the other cheek while fascism regroups, then no—we shouldn’t be better than that. We should be just. We should be lawful. And we should be clear-eyed enough to recognize when grace has curdled into complicity.
“Or should we just carry on as Hatfields and McCoys?”
The Civil War wasn’t a family feud. It was a war over slavery. January 6 wasn’t a spat. It was a coordinated assault on the peaceful transfer of power. Calling this a Hatfield-McCoy drama trivializes real stakes. This isn’t interpersonal conflict. It’s constitutional survival.
“We object to the drama and chaos for which Trump is blamed, yet your position dovetails with a status quo of one-upmanship in leapfrog assault for the sake of justice.”
That’s a clever inversion—but it’s backwards. The chaos Trump unleashed wasn’t a response to overreach. It came from the absence of consequences. From decades of lines crossed with no reckoning. Justice isn’t escalation. It’s how a society reestablishes balance.
“Don’t be ‘nobody’s fool,’ because nobody’s fool is nobody’s friend and, in fact, has no friends.”
It’s a nice turn of phrase. But democracies aren’t sustained by friendships. They’re sustained by accountability. “Nobody’s fool” is exactly what we need right now—someone who sees through the farce and refuses to play along.
“As social creatures, this too is antithetical—to being human.”
What’s antithetical to being human is standing by while your country slides toward authoritarianism and calling it maturity. Silence is easy. Cowardice is comfortable. Accountability is hard—and civilization depends on doing hard things when they matter most.
“Revenge, retribution, and ‘justice,’ as such, deteriorate our self-worth…”
I’d suggest the opposite: Impunity deteriorates our institutions. If you want to understand how democracies die, look at the moments when the guilty walked and the righteous shrugged. January 6 wasn’t the beginning—it was the result of a long refusal to enforce the rules.
“Even brother against brother, like what happened when Lincoln re-soldered a wobbly, shaky Union.”
And maybe the Union wouldn’t be so wobbly today if we had truly dealt with the original sin rather than wallpapering over it. Lincoln held the nation together. But he couldn’t make it whole. That task fell to future generations—and so far, we’ve failed. That’s not his fault. But it is our responsibility.
Bottom line: Accountability is not revenge. It’s a moral boundary. And without it, history doesn’t bend toward justice. It circles the drain.
Thank You for the clarification. I actually had some similar thoughts but your arguments convinced me. I also have to admit, that I am not too good informed about the American civil war and its consequences.
I think handling the Confederate past of the US in way similar Germany hamdles its Nazi past would be appropriate. This includes:
- banning of all symbols used by the Nazi Regime (banning faschist political parties is allowed constitutionally but did not happen thus far as they had no significant influence thus far)
- mouning the fallen just for the losses they were for their families and comunities, but without anything about honor, bravery etc
- excessive history lessons not focused on the actual military history but on the horrors the war brought on Europe and on Germany itself (including big parts about the Repression by the Regime itself)
Well for what it's worth... Lee did not believe there should be any memorials to the Confederacy, and expressed that on multiple occasions.
I believe final accountability would have been better than reconciliation without acknowledgement and accountability. I believe Lincoln paid for that mistake with his life.
To an extent I agree with Finnegan. Those graduates of our military academies who joined the Confederacy clearly violated the oaths they had taken. Lincoln was right not to hang them, but they should have been imprisoned for a log time, lost all their lands, and been sent into exile after serving 20-30 year terms. The KKK should have ruthlessly been put down. Confederate memorials should nt have been allowed.
I grew up in Memphis in the 1945-1959. The confederacy was worshiped and my opinions were not welcomed. I agree that we are still suffering from Lincoln's well meant decision, but we need to put that us behind us as best we can, acknowledge the Confederacy's treason, and move on together. Private memorials to the glorious Confederate dead are fine, but NEVER on public land or in public institutions.
For the record... I do not call the J6'ers rioters... I do not call what happened that day a riot.
They are insurrectionists... and they are to be referred to as the secesh.. and I have not changed in my description of them, privately or publicly, from that day. I just did an interview today where I corrected the record calling them insurrectionists and the secesh.
That is who they are... Jefferson Davis... the dumb version... became President of the United States...
Post-script: Even having been born and raised in the South, it was not lost on me the South was wrong and its policies heinous. And I thank God the North won that stupid, senseless war, the only positive thing to come out of it being the advances in amputation science.
Thanks for your thoughtful response. I see accountability as taking care of perpetrators such that their machinations never gear up again. If that means incarceration--I have no problem with that. Shoot them? Both will take care of the problem. Look, no love lost for those who have perverted our ethos with crimes against the country or humanity. We just need to be careful not to enjoy it when making them accountable. I know that is NOT what you're saying, but some readers may wax a little too much to the dark side.
Wow. that's a bold assessment, and I can't disagree with you. The fact that the Southern narrative was allowed to become mythical, Antebellum on the same level of reverence as Camelot, has been the root of so much evil in this country's history.
While the historical narrative is interesting, especially considering the rammifications that would have had going into the 20th century, do you think that Grant could have done that? Given that so many of the men who served opposite one another had been brothers in arms not many years before, I struggle to see where that would be the outcome. This country was already slicked with blood, how long would it have really been able to maintain the necessary "bloodthirst" to complete that necessary occupation?
I think this is perhaps the most moving reading of the Bixby Letter I've ever seen. Harve Presnell's reading is haunting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2SMCWq061pc
Completely agree with you on how Lincoln and Grant should have handled the leadership of the insurrection. Living in GA I still see daily reminders that some people still long for the good old days before the Civil War. And the flying of the confederate flag should have been outlawed like Germany did with the Nazi flag. Every time I see one flying here it makes my blood boil.
I lived in NE Iowa for a time, and there were folks who flew the confederate flag that far north, right below the American flag. Talk about complete delusion.
I'm originally from WA, and there were people flying it there. It was an area that was full of WV transplants that had moved there generations before to work in the woods and the sawmills.
I believe it! I lived around the Sound for 5 years, had friends out near Pullman & Coeur d'Alene and I heard a lot of horror stories.
This was Lewis County. One of the reddest counties in WA. Remember the Hamilton billboard on I-5? That's Lewis County.
Agree completely. I’ve been saying for a long time that we’re still recovering from, and maybe even fighting, the Civil War. Some people seem very confused about that statement.
“Merciless defeat - I don’t think that is the answer - reconciliation without justice - isn’t that what Nelson Mandela and bishop Tutu achieved “Truth and reconciliation” ? Those victim hearings acknowledged the injustice - violence is not the answer, we need a different solution, but first they (current administration) all need to be arrested and put in trial - I want to scream at the pain being inflicted on the world, these ignorant bastards have no understanding of the consequences of their actions - do not go down the dark road of annihilation - stay strong
Absolutely- I once had the pleasure of listening to Bishop Tito in London Uk, a truly magestic, magnificent spirit, he had such a presence - Truth always, otherwise reconciliation is useless -
July 7th of this year is the 160th anniversary of the hanging of four of the southern conspirators who plotted the murder of Abraham Lincoln. Mary Surratt, Lewis Powell, David Herrold, and George Atzerodt were executed on the grounds of the old District Jail in Washington, property which now forms the campus of the War College.
The principal conspirator—the man who shot Lincoln—was already dead. John Wilkes Booth had been run to ground after an extensive manhunt, and was fatally wounded in the ensuing gun battle. In all, only 84 days passed from the night Lincoln attended a play at Ford's Theater to the moment the platform traps dropped away beneath the gallows specially constructed for a different kind of drama held in the old jail yard.
It would great if we could get some relief from our current problems in as little time. Two weeks before his death, Lincoln had traveled to Virginia to meet with Grant and Sherman to discuss his ideas for the peacetime they all saw coming. Lincoln wanted a soft landing. No trials for treason, no executions. He envisioned reconciliation as the best way to heal the nation. Indeed, the old generals in blue, tough as they were, couldn't imagine hanging half of their old West Point classmates, and expressed as much to Lincoln.
The President may have envisioned defeated Confederate leaders quietly leaving the country to live in exile, but events proved otherwise. After a pause to catch their breath, the rebel generals fell in behind the Ku Klux Klan, the White League, and the Red Shirts during Reconstruction to wage war by other means.
President Jefferson Davis was indicted but never tried for treason. After awaiting trial for two years at Fort Monroe, Virginia, he was pardoned by President Andrew Johnson and released. Dr. Samuel Mudd, the Lincoln Conspirator who may have been innocent, was imprisoned at Fort Jefferson on a tiny sand spit in the middle of what is now The Gulf of America. With a little necessary carpentry, Fort Jefferson could once again serve symbolically as an American Elba. Since its location is easily reachable by modern yachts and power launches, not to mention helicopters, it would probably be the site of one cinematic rescue attempt after another, rendering its practical use for detention problematic. Perhaps a better destination for present day conspirators would be CECOT Prison in El Salvador. We already have an established account there, and, as of this writing, no rescue from that prison is possible.
I usually put this argument more succintly when I opine "Sherman should have burned Georgia again." Can't disagree with the general sentiment. On the other hand, there was the concern of ongoing guerilla warfare, quite legitimate, and its hard to second guess these decisions. Maybe, had Lincoln lived, things would have gone better. Maybe if Grant had got his third term, things would have gone better. Etc.
"Inward facing" is the perfect metaphor for the Confederates and every American who doesn't want to accept that there are people different from them.
Add to this the many great areas of the law that people have been allowed to blur lines.
Thanks for this. It’s unfortunate to look so far back in our history and be able to draw clear lines. I often remark to myself that people often die with their philosophy intact. Few of us move past that unless forced. Those who would seek to blur the lines rarely do.
Your position would have been antithetical to the whole reason to fight that war: Lincoln was thinking Union and E Pluribus Unum, not revenge. Revenge is a profitless philosophy. Should we have dropped more bombs on Japan after their surrender? Really showed them the wrath that justice delivers? The Marshall Plan in Europe helped everyone. And justice, in all of its iterations, would include revenge, the very thing Trump is criticized for (as a character flaw). We must always be better than that. Are we? Or should we just carry on as Hatfields and McCoys? We object to the drama and chaos for which Trump is blamed, yet your position dovetails with a status quo of oneupmanship in leapfrog assault for the sake of justice. Don't be "nobody's fool," because nobody's fool is nobody's friend and, in fact, has no friends. As social creatures, this too is antithetical—to being human. Revenge, retribution, and "justice," as such, deteriorate our self-worth until...well...we can't be "better than that." When that happens, the bar is lowered until we turn on each other for provocations designed on-the-fly when convenient. Even brother against brother, like what happened when Lincoln re-soldered a wobbly, shaky Union.
Thank you for the thoughtful response. This is going to feel like a stinging rebuke, but take some comfort in this: I don’t write replies like this for just anyone. You’ve surfaced a set of ideas—and emotional undercurrents—that I suspect many readers feel. So I’m engaging directly, not because I dismiss your concerns, but because this is likely the most articulate version of these arguments we’ll see. And it deserves an equally serious response.
That said—respectfully—you’re conflating a desire for accountability with an appetite for revenge. And that distinction matters, deeply. Let’s walk through your points, because each one warrants scrutiny.
“Your position would have been antithetical to the whole reason to fight that war: Lincoln was thinking Union and E Pluribus Unum, not revenge.”
Lincoln was thinking Union, yes. But in doing so, he made a calculated gamble: that binding the wound quickly would heal the body politic. Instead, we buried the infection. Reconstruction was abandoned. White supremacists were pardoned. And the Confederacy rose again—not in name, but in policy, practice, and power. Mercy without justice isn’t nobility—it’s negligence.
“Revenge is a profitless philosophy.”
So is appeasement, especially when the other side keeps reloading. What you call revenge, I call the enforcement of norms and laws—what democracies rely on to function. We don’t prosecute crimes to feel good. We prosecute them so the next would-be tyrant knows the line is real.
“Should we have dropped more bombs on Japan after their surrender? Really showed them the wrath that justice delivers?”
No. But we did hold war crimes tribunals. We didn’t “move on.” We confronted atrocities, dismantled the militarist cult, and rewrote their constitution. Reconciliation wasn’t handed out—it was earned, and justice was its foundation.
“The Marshall Plan in Europe helped everyone.”
Yes—and it came after the Nazis were crushed, the SS disbanded, the generals tried, and the ideology outlawed. We didn’t send reconstruction funds while Göring was still giving speeches. Accountability came first.
“Justice, in all of its iterations, would include revenge…”
No. That’s a rhetorical sleight of hand. Justice isn’t revenge—it’s process, precedent, restraint, and moral clarity. If indicting a coup plotter feels like vengeance to you, you’re really arguing that power should be above consequence. That’s not justice. That’s surrender.
“We must always be better than that. Are we?”
If “being better” means turning the other cheek while fascism regroups, then no—we shouldn’t be better than that. We should be just. We should be lawful. And we should be clear-eyed enough to recognize when grace has curdled into complicity.
“Or should we just carry on as Hatfields and McCoys?”
The Civil War wasn’t a family feud. It was a war over slavery. January 6 wasn’t a spat. It was a coordinated assault on the peaceful transfer of power. Calling this a Hatfield-McCoy drama trivializes real stakes. This isn’t interpersonal conflict. It’s constitutional survival.
“We object to the drama and chaos for which Trump is blamed, yet your position dovetails with a status quo of one-upmanship in leapfrog assault for the sake of justice.”
That’s a clever inversion—but it’s backwards. The chaos Trump unleashed wasn’t a response to overreach. It came from the absence of consequences. From decades of lines crossed with no reckoning. Justice isn’t escalation. It’s how a society reestablishes balance.
“Don’t be ‘nobody’s fool,’ because nobody’s fool is nobody’s friend and, in fact, has no friends.”
It’s a nice turn of phrase. But democracies aren’t sustained by friendships. They’re sustained by accountability. “Nobody’s fool” is exactly what we need right now—someone who sees through the farce and refuses to play along.
“As social creatures, this too is antithetical—to being human.”
What’s antithetical to being human is standing by while your country slides toward authoritarianism and calling it maturity. Silence is easy. Cowardice is comfortable. Accountability is hard—and civilization depends on doing hard things when they matter most.
“Revenge, retribution, and ‘justice,’ as such, deteriorate our self-worth…”
I’d suggest the opposite: Impunity deteriorates our institutions. If you want to understand how democracies die, look at the moments when the guilty walked and the righteous shrugged. January 6 wasn’t the beginning—it was the result of a long refusal to enforce the rules.
“Even brother against brother, like what happened when Lincoln re-soldered a wobbly, shaky Union.”
And maybe the Union wouldn’t be so wobbly today if we had truly dealt with the original sin rather than wallpapering over it. Lincoln held the nation together. But he couldn’t make it whole. That task fell to future generations—and so far, we’ve failed. That’s not his fault. But it is our responsibility.
Bottom line: Accountability is not revenge. It’s a moral boundary. And without it, history doesn’t bend toward justice. It circles the drain.
Thank You for the clarification. I actually had some similar thoughts but your arguments convinced me. I also have to admit, that I am not too good informed about the American civil war and its consequences.
I think handling the Confederate past of the US in way similar Germany hamdles its Nazi past would be appropriate. This includes:
- banning of all symbols used by the Nazi Regime (banning faschist political parties is allowed constitutionally but did not happen thus far as they had no significant influence thus far)
- mouning the fallen just for the losses they were for their families and comunities, but without anything about honor, bravery etc
- excessive history lessons not focused on the actual military history but on the horrors the war brought on Europe and on Germany itself (including big parts about the Repression by the Regime itself)
What do you think?
Well for what it's worth... Lee did not believe there should be any memorials to the Confederacy, and expressed that on multiple occasions.
I believe final accountability would have been better than reconciliation without acknowledgement and accountability. I believe Lincoln paid for that mistake with his life.
To an extent I agree with Finnegan. Those graduates of our military academies who joined the Confederacy clearly violated the oaths they had taken. Lincoln was right not to hang them, but they should have been imprisoned for a log time, lost all their lands, and been sent into exile after serving 20-30 year terms. The KKK should have ruthlessly been put down. Confederate memorials should nt have been allowed.
I grew up in Memphis in the 1945-1959. The confederacy was worshiped and my opinions were not welcomed. I agree that we are still suffering from Lincoln's well meant decision, but we need to put that us behind us as best we can, acknowledge the Confederacy's treason, and move on together. Private memorials to the glorious Confederate dead are fine, but NEVER on public land or in public institutions.
Private becomes public.
No memorials. Down with the traitors... up with the Star.
And we'll rally round the flag boys, rally once again, shouting the battle cry of freedom.
For the record... I do not call the J6'ers rioters... I do not call what happened that day a riot.
They are insurrectionists... and they are to be referred to as the secesh.. and I have not changed in my description of them, privately or publicly, from that day. I just did an interview today where I corrected the record calling them insurrectionists and the secesh.
That is who they are... Jefferson Davis... the dumb version... became President of the United States...
https://www.thelongmemo.com/p/do-we-really-wanna-go-back-to-dixie
Damn right.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCthzdHZKKE&list=RDSCthzdHZKKE
Post-script: Even having been born and raised in the South, it was not lost on me the South was wrong and its policies heinous. And I thank God the North won that stupid, senseless war, the only positive thing to come out of it being the advances in amputation science.
Thanks for your thoughtful response. I see accountability as taking care of perpetrators such that their machinations never gear up again. If that means incarceration--I have no problem with that. Shoot them? Both will take care of the problem. Look, no love lost for those who have perverted our ethos with crimes against the country or humanity. We just need to be careful not to enjoy it when making them accountable. I know that is NOT what you're saying, but some readers may wax a little too much to the dark side.
Wow. that's a bold assessment, and I can't disagree with you. The fact that the Southern narrative was allowed to become mythical, Antebellum on the same level of reverence as Camelot, has been the root of so much evil in this country's history.
While the historical narrative is interesting, especially considering the rammifications that would have had going into the 20th century, do you think that Grant could have done that? Given that so many of the men who served opposite one another had been brothers in arms not many years before, I struggle to see where that would be the outcome. This country was already slicked with blood, how long would it have really been able to maintain the necessary "bloodthirst" to complete that necessary occupation?
Trump’s recent executive order will restore those confederate statues and monuments 😳
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/restoring-truth-and-sanity-to-american-history/
Photos from Appomattox 150 years later: https://substack.com/profile/36450617-paul-schatzkin/note/c-107414090
Whoa, baby!