Was Reconstruction a Military Occupation?

Was Reconstruction a Military Occupation?

  • Yes

    Votes: 12 80.0%
  • No

    Votes: 2 13.3%
  • Other, see post

    Votes: 1 6.7%

  • Total voters
    15
Most people don’t realize this, but during the period known as Reconstruction in the South, it was effectively an occupation—an Army occupation. The first two years were a strict military occupation, and the remainder was a modified occupation.

There were many resistors throughout the South, but only in the Trans‑Mississippi region—mostly Texas and Louisiana—was the resistance especially extreme.
During Reconstruction, quite a number of Union occupation force soldiers died of yellow fever in Texas and Louisiana.
 
Then you are full of shit. Its not bayonets keeping Texas and Florida in the Union with the old loser CSA States. What the hell is wrong with you?

You are free to leave. Haiti is waiting!

The Southern states were free to leave in 1861. But the Yankee bayonet said no. The Yankee bayonet changed the Constitution to form their new 'union'. A union based upon military victory and the conqueror.

I am always as an individual free to leave. But we are talking about 'States'.

Quantrill
 
Last edited:
I’m sorry, but evidently I’m seeing something different than you. At the top of my screen I see ‘U.S. Discussion’ and ‘History,’ so naturally I assume I’m in the history forum. Please explain. And I have no agenda other than a love of history. I’m not ashamed of my heritage—that much is obvious.

If I have an agenda, it is simply that we should learn from history.
Its not a history forum. you have a CSA agenda.
 
Did you see I quoted that statement?

You said: " air‑to‑ground missiles capable of taking down aircraft,"

Those are called surface to air missiles (SAMs).
I see it now, and all I can say is that it happens from time to time — and it will most likely happen again. It’s not the worst, but it’s pretty close. Does it honestly negate anything I was trying to say? War is unpredictable. You should never assume victory; you should work to make victory as close to an absolute certainty as possible.
 
The Southern states were free to leave in 1861. But the Yankee bayonet said no. The Yankee bayonet changed the Constitution to form their new 'union'. A union based upon military victory and the conqueror.

I am always as an individual free to leave. But we are talking about 'States'.

Quantrill
Again, Haiti is calling. You can take Mississippi with you.
 
I see it now, and all I can say is that it happens from time to time — and it will most likely happen again. It’s not the worst, but it’s pretty close. Does it honestly negate anything I was trying to say? War is unpredictable. You should never assume victory; you should work to make victory as close to an absolute certainty as possible.
The Russians are pussies. Their capabilities are always overrated. I have seen them up close and personal, and they don't impress me.
 
Its not a history forum. you have a CSA agenda.

It is a history forum and the CSA is part of our history.

Just because it's not 'your' history doesn't mean it isn't history.

Yankees are so double tonged. Only 'their history' is important. Which is why only their bullshit has been taught over the years. And if you oppose it...you must have an 'agenda'.

Yeah, we got an agenda. Get the history right.

Quantrill
 
15th post
Why would any state try to secede? Its level 12 stupid.

That is not the point. The point is the U.S. is united by the bayonet. Let any State try and secede, and see what happens.

Try and keep up.

Quantrill
 
We are united by the bayonet. Let any State try and secede today and see what happens.

Quantrill
I can't speak for Quant Quantrell, but I will say that if, in the last few years, secession could have succeeded by a simple vote of the people, I'm not too sure that several states wouldn’t have formed their own union. I've even heard liberals express the same opinion, but in their case it's motivated by hatred of Trump. When he's out of office, that sentiment might change.

I'm not saying it will happen; I'm just saying I've heard talk like that in the last few years, so I'm not certain.
 
Last edited:
I can't speak for Quant Quantrell, but I will say that if, in the last few years, secession could have succeeded by a simple vote of the people, I'm not too sure that several states wouldn’t have formed their own union. I've even heard liberals express the same opinion, but in their case it's motivated by hatred of Trump. When he's out of office, that sentiment might change.

I'm not saying it will happen; I'm just saying I've heard talk like that in the last few years, so I'm not certain.

Are you talking about certain States dividing into several states? If so, that is not secession from the U.S. Secession from the U.S. is when the State resumes that which it delegated to the Federal govt. to exercise on their behalf. Tenth Amendment. It is no longer part of or under the authority of the U.S.

Quantrill
 
I can't speak for Quant Quantrell, but I will say that if, in the last few years, secession could have succeeded by a simple vote of the people, I'm not too sure that several states wouldn’t have formed their own union. I've even heard liberals express the same opinion, but in their case it's motivated by hatred of Trump. When he's out of office, that sentiment might change.

I'm not saying it will happen; I'm just saying I've heard talk like that in the last few years, so I'm not certain.
Say no to drugs and read the Constitution. :auiqs.jpg: :auiqs.jpg: :auiqs.jpg: :auiqs.jpg: :auiqs.jpg:
 
Back
Top Bottom