this post was submitted on 23 Mar 2026
112 points (99.1% liked)
ShermanPosting
283 readers
128 users here now
Where we meme (joking in tone and detail, serious in sentiment) about General Sherman, the Civil War, and how the secesh traitors had it coming.
RULES
-
No bigotry. The Union, or at least the part of the Union WE support, fought AGAINST that shite. We are anti-racist, anti-sexist, anti-homophobic, anti-transphobic, and in general anti-bigot here, even if not all the lads in Union blue uniforms were.
-
No Confederate sympathizing. Anti-democratic racist slaver traitors don't deserve shit.
-
Follow all Piefed.social rules
founded 8 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I do agree that Lincoln wasn't the most radical anti-slavery politician of the time. I just do also believe that his anti-slavery sentiment was both strong and genuine - and that fears of an enduring and brutal war of occupation were not entirely unreasonable, even if we can see with hindsight that the South was whipped and Federal troops would not have incurred more than a handful of casualties against Lost Causers.
Ironically, I would suggest his 'Honest Abe' reputation as sabotaging him in this regard - Lincoln was a consummate politician who was willing to lie through his teeth on numerous issues to numerous people to pursue his long-term policy goals, and that he was willing to change positions in order to achieve a victory even if it wasn't the ideal victory he wanted. Once again, in line with you, acknowledging that Lincoln, even with this in mind, was not part of the radical wing of the party; only trying to emphasize that Lincoln, like all politicians, must be examined in the context of the process of their career, rather than individual statements or claims.
I would also point out that Lincoln's influence on peacetime Reconstruction was effectively nil, considering that it was almost entirely predicated on the struggle between the archracist Johnson and the Radical Republican Congress of the period after his assassination.
And also, the Wade-Davis Bill would have disenfranchised the South for several generations. And while, lol, based; I also understand why that may not be an appealing approach for someone who hopes to not have to fight a second Civil War after this first one is done.
I suppose my problem with Lincoln stems from the fact that there were prominent and high ranking figures around Lincoln that were saying this at the time. That were pushing radical reconstruction. It makes me wonder what would've happened if they were president - and if Lincoln wasn't more a hindrance.
But I suppose perhaps it's just me pushing back against the two dimensional view and education that most get on Lincoln.
The issue in choosing who to listen to is always who is correct, factually, and who is just headstrong?
Shooting too high will ruin all your plans - including the pared-back ones you were keeping in your pocket for an emergency. Shooting too low will also ruin all your plans, including the pared-back ones you thought you could implement.
I don't envy people with an actual conscience who have to make decisions like that. Man was also exhausted and tormented by the unending stream of casualties by mid-1864.
... that being said, I'm generally with you on the subject - if I was operating within the constraints of the time, I still think I would fall on "The South needs to be treated seriously, to preserve the gains of this war" with the Radicals over "The South needs to know it will not be occupied forever, to prevent another war which will erase all our gains" of Lincoln. I just think it is a legitimate issue of strategy, rather than a question of values.
Of course, I agree entirely. Lincoln as a saint is not real history. Hagiography has no place in studies of the past.