Why did Reconstruction fail to improve the South?

Why did Reconstruction fail to improve the South?

Other urls found in this thread:

ibtimes.com/white-southerners-likely-have-more-black-dna-whites-elsewhere-us-study-1765498
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Because it didn't solve the South's biggest problem: the presence of the blacks.

Where do you think the term 'it all went south' comes from?

Because the south didn't want to improve mostly.

Mexicans

The south stayed poor as a form of nonviolent resistance

Vivé

The south should have never been allowed to govern themselves.

because blaming niggers for all their hardship instead of general self improvement is all they have going for them

Although the south does produce the most rocket scientists and Astronauts

But probably to get away from their abusive households in meth fueled cities

White southerners are also niggers. I'm not saying nigger as a metaphor, I mean they literally have black blood in them. This is the main reason why their whites are so unfathomably stupid compared to whites in the rest of the nation.

they just have REALLY shitty state governments most of the time with some cities/towns being a refuge in the deluge of bad polices and governing.

user I'm not memeing.

ibtimes.com/white-southerners-likely-have-more-black-dna-whites-elsewhere-us-study-1765498

>ibtimes.com/white-southerners-likely-have-more-black-dna-whites-elsewhere-us-study-1765498

Nice meme you got there

The Radical Republicans didn't get their way of purging the South of those Confederate traitors, so they were allowed to create new systems of slavery, racism and resistance.
This

Because it didn't get rid of the niggers that were the cause of the south's problems.

>traitors
I know you, specifically, are just meming, but it's simply intellectually dishonest to use this term for the Confederacy and I know lots of respectable people do

For "traitor" to have any application here, there would be have to be two conditions met which were not at the time.
>The United States would have to be at war with a foreign power
>The founders of the Confederacy, as well as most of the populace, would have to plan to support this power to the detriment of the North
That would justify the use of the word "traitor".

Furthermore, don't pretend as though there was no legitimate argument for two seperate nations. Yes, slavery is wrong if you let spooks run your life, as we all do. But when the republic's elections devolve from ideological debates into two parties playing 5d chess to try and create more slave states than free states (and vice versa) the case for two governments is there.

Yadda yadda talking to myself. Post a picture of a fat guy at Walmart or Sherman if it makes you feel good. I need a drink.
Pic related it's what I piss in

They had like years to progress and catch up to the rest of the U.S. They willingly fucked up one large % of their population to do so. They invested pretty nothing on that population so they basically had less citizens to take care of compared to other states and much less voting power due to disenfranchisement and voting violence. They had years to industrialize and help up lift it's poor population, they had the help of the federal government early on and huge influence against the feds that whenever the feds took issue with what they did the South shut them up.

Yet it went no where. The development gap between the north and the South is still there and blatant as ever.

I'm not memeing

>Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court
>shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies
>levying war against them

The Confederacy went into open rebellion when they "seceded" and then literally levied war against the United States government when they attacked Fort Sumter. The only argument you can have against this is that the Confederacy was it's own separate state, which would make those Souther leader's enemy combatants, no longer US citizens and should never have been allowed to participate in US government after the fact until they met the requirements to become naturalized citizens.

Also
>First election to not get your wa
>literally have a bigger meltdown than Shillary supporters
>mfw

south being in the down direction on a map -> things going down -> quality going down -> things getting worse

>The Confederacy went into open rebellion when they "seceded" and then literally levied war against the United States government
Except that the union didn't legally recognize the confederacy.

>Removing illegally-occupying foreigners from your land is levying war
Essentially responding to an invasion desu
>Which would make those southern leaders enemy combatants, no longer US citizens and should never have been allowes to participate in US government...
True. That was, in fact, their intention. Though I don't think the Constitution has a provision for wether or not annexed people become citizens, so who knows what would have happened if the CSA had been recognized albiet briefly as a foreign power (which it was)

That's my point. The Confederacy was an act of open rebellion against the United States government not a war against 2 separate states. As such, the Confederate leaders were traitors and should have been purged for high treason, not get the slap on the wrist Lincoln and Johnson gave them.
Fort Sumter is Federal Government property not state property. Even if the Confederacy was allowed to legally secede, property and territories belonging to the Federal Government are just that: territories and property belonging to the Federal government.
>so who knows what would have happened if the CSA had been recognized albiet briefly as a foreign power (which it was)
Except it never was a foreign power.

How can a nation wage war against itself?

What is a civil war? What is rebellion?
Definition of war here:
>a state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state.

It's like you're intentionally trying to be pedantic

Because there was pressure from both sides to cripple it. Presidents after Lincoln didn't have the strength or savvy to follow through with it.

>Except it never was a foreign power.
Of course they were. They seceded.
>But secession is illegal in the Consitution
The Constution was nullified when they seceded. You can legislate against gravity- apples will still fall

Unilateral secession was never legal. The Federal government and other states never recognized their declaration, no other nation recognized their "independence", and the ultimate form of legality - right of legality through victory - was on the side of the United States federal government. So no, in no sphere did the Confederacy have a legal standing.

>and the ultimate form of legality - right of legality through victory
Legality is a worthless human construct
Consider that you're arguing against the right to self determination, which has been a cornerstone of United Nations doctrine for 56 years. If the population of a territory declares themselves independent and successfully controls said territory they're independent. If the Confederacy never existed I hope Lincoln's ghost has a good reason for why the army shot all those Americans

It was already in a shitty situation, they went all in on cotton and a coincidental drop in cotton prices would have ruined their economy if the war didn't happen.

>Legality is a worthless human construct
Not really. Legality helps to keep things in perspective, and besides now you're shifting the goal posts. The Union won the war, it was determined by the courts that secession without consent from other states is illegal, therefore the entire Confederacy was in open rebellion against the Legal and rightful government, as such they were all traitors and their leaders should have been executed for high treason. It was only because of Lincoln and Johnson that this didn't happen, which is sad, because the country would have been better for it.

>If the Confederacy never existed I hope Lincoln's ghost has a good reason for why the army shot all those Americans
Because those said Americans were in open rebellion against the rightful government? The President and the military have the right to use deadly force to quell a rebellion.

>Turning against your nation and people is not treason
Your the one memeing here

>Declaring war against yourself

Because nigger-tier Yankees chimped out at men fighting for the values of the founding fathers two generations before and wiped out all the best southern men. The north never wanted to rebuild the south, just exploit it through parasitic carpetbaggers

>he thinks wars can only be fought between separate states
Please go back to school, child.

Because it didn't redistribute small land patches to the freed slaves, leaving them still beholden to the rich whites who now further despised them (along with the poor whites who now hated them more than ever) and because it was ended prematurely in exchange for certain southern Dems supporting Rutherford B. Hayes gaining 20 or so disputed electoral votes after neither candidates were able to reach an electoral majority in the '76 election.

Or the cotton weevil or the depletion of nutrition in the soil. Woo the blow out if those happened as everything collapsed.

It was never meant too

It was doublespeak for the North's plundering of Southern land and resources.

Because the powers that be took every step possible to avoid industrialization, including rejecting federal funding for infrastructure projects, because it did not serve their interests to have an inclusive society.

funds were pulled before we saw any success, and people from the north came down and took advantage of poor southerners, furthering the problem

This, but in detail it was the fact the Union did not destroy the aristocratic slave-owning class and let them continue to be in charge. We don't talk a lot today about how poor non-slave owning whites before the war hated the plantation aristocrats and were very often against both secession and the war. The Union wasted a perfect opportunity to rally Whites against treasonous thinking by not holding up the plantation class as the instigators of the war and the true source behind their misfortune like we did with the German and Japanese regimes after WWII for their respective populations. We let the aristocrats write the souths history of the war and frame it as "Northern Aggression" instead of "A minuscule class of slavers roped you all into installing them as old European style Serf masters for your loss and their gain". It's the same as if we had let the Nazi higher ups write Germanys post WWII textbooks.