There’s never any guarantee that changing such a thing would result in a better present, but I would sure as fuck be massively different
Fuck Johnson for hamstringing Reconstruction
Submitted 3 weeks ago by PugJesus@piefed.social to historymemes@piefed.social
https://media.piefed.social/posts/Kz/rN/KzrN5xJnqeCg06u.webp
Comments
southsamurai@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago Raiderkev@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
OP forgot to put the next evolution which is MAGA
Quetzalcutlass@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Fuck the Daughters of the Confederacy too while we’re at it.
AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Woodrow F-ing Wilson
PugJesus@piefed.social 3 weeks ago
Explanation: After the US Civil War, fought over the issue of slavery, there was an immense appetite in the anti-slavery North for forcibly reforming the pro-slavery South during “Reconstruction”, the period of military occupation following the Civil War.
The assassination of President Abraham Lincoln, however, led to Andrew Johnson succeeding him. Andrew Johnson was a blatant white supremacist who was opposed to effectively all measures to reform the South. Johnson would fail miserably when he actually had to run in an election a few years later, but the damage had been done - Reconstruction efforts were immensely damaged by the support for the planter aristocracy by the highest office in the land.
acockworkorange@mander.xyz 3 weeks ago
Killing Johnson soon after the election could have prevented Nazism, change my mind.
AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Killing Taft in late 1911 or early 1912 would have done more to prevent both Stalinism and Nazism.
Without Taft running against Teddy, Wilson doesn’t win. Remove Wilson and the entire 20th century looks vastly different.
gbuttersnaps@programming.dev 3 weeks ago
Anyone have a good book recommendation for this time period?
PugJesus@piefed.social 3 weeks ago
Race and Reunion: The Civil War in American Memory
It’s about the cultural rather than political-economic aspects of Reconstruction and its failures. It’s excellent. The only thing I have against it is that it had a weird and inaccurate axe to grind against both General Sherman and General Grant, both of whom had views which changed radically over the course of the Civil War and its aftermath.
PugJesus@piefed.social 3 weeks ago
I read a fantastic one not long ago on a recommendation from a commenter on here I had an argument with (lmao). Once I get back from work I’ll see if I can find what it was.