- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: History Debate: Ulysses S. Grant vs. Robert E. Lee
Posted on 3/31/14 at 6:45 pm to NC_Tigah
Posted on 3/31/14 at 6:45 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:It's a PoliBoard circle jerk in hardcover form.
Was a basic premise that "after the South declared its independence, the Union ruthlessly invaded, leaving Southerners no choice but to defend themselves?"
Posted on 3/31/14 at 6:47 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Was a basic premise that "after the South declared its independence, the Union ruthlessly invaded, leaving Southerners no choice but to defend themselves?"
It discusses northern war atrocities but the parts I was most interested in were discussions concerning right of secession and reconstruction, also letters and such from prominent people of the time. Sometimes what you say in public is not what you say in private.
Posted on 3/31/14 at 6:50 pm to bencoleman
quote:Thanks
the parts I was most interested in were discussions concerning right of secession and reconstruction
Posted on 3/31/14 at 7:01 pm to bencoleman
quote:
He discusses the dismal future awaiting the former slaves, remember he wrote the book in 1866.
I must admit I only read part of the book in college.
And I agree wholeheartedly on the condition not just for slaves post war but for the South as a whole was abysmal.
Its just that some, not this writer per say have pointed to the condition of former slaves after the war as another reason not to have fought the war at all. As in they were better off as slaves than post war freemen.
Posted on 3/31/14 at 7:33 pm to goatmilker
There is no question. That the former slaves would have been better off if the hadn't been fought. Most intelligent southerners knew that slavery had to go. They had the problem of what to do with the former slaves.
Posted on 3/31/14 at 7:36 pm to goatmilker
Also they never would have had to suffer the backlash caused by reconstruction
Posted on 3/31/14 at 7:40 pm to bencoleman
Seems to me that no matter what the slaves were going to get the short end of things .
No war, when does slavery end?
How does it end with no war and what happens next?
It seems that there is no way to know if slaves would have had it better or worse if no war had occurred.
No war, when does slavery end?
How does it end with no war and what happens next?
It seems that there is no way to know if slaves would have had it better or worse if no war had occurred.
Posted on 3/31/14 at 7:43 pm to bencoleman
quote:
They had the problem of what to do with the former slaves.
The whole country was concerned with this.
Its still amazing to me that it even went as well as it did. Most would be shocked at such thoughts but I believe it to be true.
Millions of slaves suddenly free in the land of their oppressors?
North and South were both right to question the outcome of such a paradigm.
Posted on 3/31/14 at 7:44 pm to bencoleman
quote:Kind of like Bernie Madoff realizing in 1999 the Ponzi had to go? But as with Madoff, it took disaster to actually accomplish the deed.
Most intelligent southerners knew that slavery had to go.
Contemporary Southern statements surrounding secession, along with secession documents themselves, do not hint in the least of any mentality "that slavery had to go."
Posted on 3/31/14 at 7:47 pm to doubleb
quote:Freedom trumps all.
It seems that there is no way to know if slaves would have had it better or worse if no war had occurred.
Period.
I cannot imagine someone in this country speculating otherwise.
Posted on 3/31/14 at 7:58 pm to NC_Tigah
Same here
Pretending that somehow Southerners would gradually free their slaves and accept them into their society as equals defies logic.
Pretending that somehow Southerners would gradually free their slaves and accept them into their society as equals defies logic.
Posted on 3/31/14 at 8:05 pm to doubleb
quote:Oh, it would have happened no doubt.
Pretending that somehow Southerners would gradually free their slaves and accept them into their society as equals defies logic.
I mean for goodness sakes 60 years later, by 1920 we had even given women the right to vote.
Just kidding, Just kidding
Posted on 3/31/14 at 8:19 pm to doubleb
quote:
Pretending that somehow Southerners would gradually free their slaves and accept them into their society as equals defies logic
What defies logic is yours and others assumption that slavery would still be here today had the south won.
Posted on 3/31/14 at 8:21 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
do not hint in the least of any mentality "that slavery had
That's why I made the comment about private statements vs public statements.
Posted on 3/31/14 at 8:23 pm to bencoleman
quote:It would have ended within a generation, but that is still one additional generation of slavery. No positive way to spin that.
What defies logic is yours and others assumption that slavery would still be here today had the south won.
Posted on 3/31/14 at 8:28 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
It would have ended within a generation, but that is still one additional generation of slavery. No positive way to spin that.
I believe this to be true, 10 to 15 years tops if that long. The south stopped the importation of slaves for a reason, they didn't know what to do with the ones they had.
Posted on 3/31/14 at 8:40 pm to bencoleman
quote:with the enslaved human beings they pathetically subjugated.
they didn't know what to do with the ones they had.
Posted on 3/31/14 at 8:53 pm to bencoleman
Fine 10 to 15 years and then what?
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News