258
Worst States To Live & Work In. All 10 Are Republican States
(www.cnbc.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 16 Jul 2023
258 points (92.4% liked)
politics
19107 readers
2016 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
The American South has been reeling since the years following the Civil War. The economic strength of the Southern States was so tied up in agricultural slavery. When that system was dismantled it left a big hole in the fabric of those states socially, economically, politically. All of that resentment never went away it just changed forms over the years and turned into law and public policy. It's easy to forget that the Civil War was not that long ago, not in terms of human social development in any case.
It doesn't help that we elected qn apologist who decided to welcome them back with open arms not so long after the Civil War. Instead of adapting to the situation they were in, post-war, they ended up sucking on the feds that while they got equal representation as the non-slave states.
That's not what happened. Johnson became president when Lincoln was assassinated and at that time the president and VP didn't run on a single ticket and instead the VP slot went to the presidential runner-up, who, of course, was from the opposition. So we didn't really elect Johnson; we elected Lincoln, but John Wilkes Booth happened and he fucked us for generations.
Hmm, for some reason I thought it happened much later. Apologies!
Well the guy we elected after Johnson was Grant, and while he was an outstanding General, he was nowhere near as capable in the presidency where his authority, while great, was very different in kind from that of a military commander.
There's an argument to the effect that Grant was largely an absentee president who preferred to spend his days drinking as opposed to actually being the chief executive.
I'm not a historian and don't know enough about his presidency to have a strong opinion on it, but there's no question that the policies that Johnson put in place, that allowed reconstruction to go so badly off the rails, weren't competently addressed by the Grant administration, so in that respect your original point is not entirely incorrect.
He also badly botched, mostly through a lack of attention, Indian affairs with regard to the powerful plains tribes. It was probably inevitable that said tribes would eventually be subjugated, but it certainly could and should have been handled more humanely.