- 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: How are you remembering Union Soldiers that died in the Civil War
Posted on 5/28/17 at 1:39 pm to SiloamHog
Posted on 5/28/17 at 1:39 pm to SiloamHog
frick all yankee scum.
We placed Confederate flags on all of our Civil War veteran graves this morning before church, as we do every memorial day.
We placed US flags on the graves of other KIA war graves as always ... and, as always, there are more Confederate flags than U.S. flags ... my church (Lutheran) was founded in 1850 so things were fairly volatile? at the time for a lot of reasons, and we had 154 from our church alone KIA in the war of yankee agression, only 71 of the bodies made it home.
Sherman's yankee murdering incestuous bastard fricks burned down our original building in 1865 and desecrated? many of the existing graves and stones at the time.
Our Cedar Grove boys helped kill a crap ton of yankee scum though, 2:1 ratio at least.
We placed Confederate flags on all of our Civil War veteran graves this morning before church, as we do every memorial day.
We placed US flags on the graves of other KIA war graves as always ... and, as always, there are more Confederate flags than U.S. flags ... my church (Lutheran) was founded in 1850 so things were fairly volatile? at the time for a lot of reasons, and we had 154 from our church alone KIA in the war of yankee agression, only 71 of the bodies made it home.
Sherman's yankee murdering incestuous bastard fricks burned down our original building in 1865 and desecrated? many of the existing graves and stones at the time.
Our Cedar Grove boys helped kill a crap ton of yankee scum though, 2:1 ratio at least.
0
Posted on 5/28/17 at 1:44 pm to DawgsLife
quote:
But lets not pain the north and a bunch of generous soldiers fighting for the freedom of slaves.
You don't have to. You can tell it like it is. The confederates were treasonous traitors. Not a whole more needs to be said.
Posted on 5/28/17 at 1:52 pm to SiloamHog
I ate me some hard tack for lunch.
the recipe
the recipe
Posted on 5/28/17 at 2:05 pm to AU86
He's a real buffoon. Constantly spouts anti-war/Bilderberg type conspiracy theories about how all the wars waged by the U.S. were wrong, but then has an almost diametrically opposite view of Lincoln and the Civil War, which he appears to have an all-consuming obsession about.
For the sake of those reading, however, the semantic constitutional argument is ridiculous. The Articles of Confederation also had the same language about "perpetual Union" ( LINK): "Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the states".
But that doesn't tell you anything about where true sovereignty lies. People create perpetual corporations and entities all the time. That doesn't literally mean that they must endure forever. The American colonists did not believe they had sovereignty, and yet they still rebelled against the Crown in order to defend Magna Carta style rights. Why cannot a state with an admitted sphere of sovereignty do the same?
Also, I know that this "the Civil War was really about slavery" argument is trendy now with the feverish writings of Ta-Nehisi Coates and other Progressives, but that kind of stuff grossly oversimplifies the reality of the situation back then.
Don't forget, the proximate cause of secession was the war in Kansas, and the election of a party that seemed to offer support to Northern terrorist raids like those supported by John Brown and Harriet Tubman. That doesn't make slavery right, and I don't mean to imply that the Bushwhackers were morally equal to the Jayhawkers. I'm just saying, the cause of secession was the fear of radicals coming into the South to disrupt the stability of social relations. So it makes sense that the most vocal secessionist politicians and newspapers of the day would offer polarizing arguments in favor of the institution of slavery.
Not only that, but as everyone admits, the North did not start the war to abolish slavery. If that had been the true casus belli, then the whole conversation would be much different. If the North's battle cry would have been, "preserve the Union to abolish slavery and gradually phase in voting rights for blacks over 25 years!!", I would be a huge Union fan myself. But it wasn't. The North started the war to keep 7 states (SC, GA, & the 5 Gulf Coast states) integrated within its economy. The threat of slavery's expansion to U.S. territories had been contained. Slave states still existed in MO, KY, DE, & MD. Slave states had existed not too long ago in the other Northern states.
Did those 7 states have a legitimate worry about black enfranchisement? Yes. As the 1860 census shows, they had slave populations of 57%, 55%, 47%, 45%, 44%, 44%, & 30%. What could idealistic Northern abolitionists possibly tell them about the practical realities of integrating another culture into a modern democratic governing structure? Almost nothing. They never faced such a situation before (indeed, nowhere in the world had ever faced such a situation), and it was difficult, if not impossible, to know what to do.
While slavery was being phased out in the North in the early 19th century, many of the states in the South were just being settled on the savage frontier, where all able hands available were needed to hold land against the British, Spanish, and Indians. What was Arkansas, Mississippi, & Alabama like in the 1810s and 1820s? Others like South Carolina & Georgia simply had too much capital invested in cotton. Others like Louisiana had legacy systems that were evolving toward something better before the Civil War occurred.
So you understand how the people in those states got to where they were, and looking at historical context, it's not easy to know how best to move away from such a system. I'd say Brazil and Cuba and the Caribbean give the best examples (see e.g., the system of abolishing trade first, and then phasing slaves into freedmen through transitory "apprenticeship" periods), but none show a clearly optimal path forward. None of them were living in a system that espoused a Jacksonian system of voting rights for every free male citizen either.
...
For the sake of those reading, however, the semantic constitutional argument is ridiculous. The Articles of Confederation also had the same language about "perpetual Union" ( LINK): "Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the states".
But that doesn't tell you anything about where true sovereignty lies. People create perpetual corporations and entities all the time. That doesn't literally mean that they must endure forever. The American colonists did not believe they had sovereignty, and yet they still rebelled against the Crown in order to defend Magna Carta style rights. Why cannot a state with an admitted sphere of sovereignty do the same?
Also, I know that this "the Civil War was really about slavery" argument is trendy now with the feverish writings of Ta-Nehisi Coates and other Progressives, but that kind of stuff grossly oversimplifies the reality of the situation back then.
Don't forget, the proximate cause of secession was the war in Kansas, and the election of a party that seemed to offer support to Northern terrorist raids like those supported by John Brown and Harriet Tubman. That doesn't make slavery right, and I don't mean to imply that the Bushwhackers were morally equal to the Jayhawkers. I'm just saying, the cause of secession was the fear of radicals coming into the South to disrupt the stability of social relations. So it makes sense that the most vocal secessionist politicians and newspapers of the day would offer polarizing arguments in favor of the institution of slavery.
Not only that, but as everyone admits, the North did not start the war to abolish slavery. If that had been the true casus belli, then the whole conversation would be much different. If the North's battle cry would have been, "preserve the Union to abolish slavery and gradually phase in voting rights for blacks over 25 years!!", I would be a huge Union fan myself. But it wasn't. The North started the war to keep 7 states (SC, GA, & the 5 Gulf Coast states) integrated within its economy. The threat of slavery's expansion to U.S. territories had been contained. Slave states still existed in MO, KY, DE, & MD. Slave states had existed not too long ago in the other Northern states.
Did those 7 states have a legitimate worry about black enfranchisement? Yes. As the 1860 census shows, they had slave populations of 57%, 55%, 47%, 45%, 44%, 44%, & 30%. What could idealistic Northern abolitionists possibly tell them about the practical realities of integrating another culture into a modern democratic governing structure? Almost nothing. They never faced such a situation before (indeed, nowhere in the world had ever faced such a situation), and it was difficult, if not impossible, to know what to do.
While slavery was being phased out in the North in the early 19th century, many of the states in the South were just being settled on the savage frontier, where all able hands available were needed to hold land against the British, Spanish, and Indians. What was Arkansas, Mississippi, & Alabama like in the 1810s and 1820s? Others like South Carolina & Georgia simply had too much capital invested in cotton. Others like Louisiana had legacy systems that were evolving toward something better before the Civil War occurred.
So you understand how the people in those states got to where they were, and looking at historical context, it's not easy to know how best to move away from such a system. I'd say Brazil and Cuba and the Caribbean give the best examples (see e.g., the system of abolishing trade first, and then phasing slaves into freedmen through transitory "apprenticeship" periods), but none show a clearly optimal path forward. None of them were living in a system that espoused a Jacksonian system of voting rights for every free male citizen either.
...
Posted on 5/28/17 at 2:05 pm to Doc Fenton
...
So if someone from Mississippi or South Carolina wants to fight to preserve social stability in his state against a Northern aggressor and terrorist-sympathizer who he feels might one day turn his home electorate majority black, then I don't blame him for that. Full emancipation of a dependent class of people is best done gradually. Bringing democratic self-governance and civilized freedom to people not accustomed to it is a task that can only be carried out over multiple generations, as we see in the Book of Exodus, as we saw with Indian reservations, and more recently, as we see in Russia and Afghanistan and Iraq. We still don’t have great answers about the best way to make such transitions.
In the 1860s, nobody had a good answer either. Many in the North saw no need to meddle in Southern affairs. Reconstruction eventually turned into a political disaster for the Republicans, who soon lost control of Congress in the 1874, 1876, and 1878 elections. People say that the North turned its back on blacks from 1877-1900, and they would be right, but what system could they offer as an alternative? Immediate enfranchisement and majority control of state governments by ex-slaves? That was too revolutionary to be politically practical, and due to its impracticability, a lot of hypocritical arrangements and legal fictions were erected in its place.
And let's not throw the genteel plantation owners under the bus either. They were not as bad about racial issues during the Jim Crow era as other whites. The KKK was not primarily a creation of the rich, old slaveholders. It was mostly a creation of small town whites, many of whom were either vaguely pro-Union or ambiguous about their Civil War loyalties. They simply wanted segregated cities, white dominance, and an end to Reconstruction, same as most people in the North did.
By the 1960s, full enforcement of voting rights had been a long time overdue, but few people care to admit that this could only happen, even then, because so many blacks had already moved away to the North, thus finally making the electoral system in the South more stable, and more capable of managing full enfranchisement over the coming generation.
Those favoring the North tend to resort to arguments asserting that the ends justify the means, but the question that must always be asked: Had Lincoln listened to some of his advisers and negotiated a monetary settlement for Fort Sumter, rather than resupplying a fort in an independent state, what would have happened to slavery in those 7 states? What would have happened to slavery in those other slave-holding states? Would better state-level solutions have been worked out for gradually enfranchising former slaves? Maybe.
Generally speaking, by the time 1861 came around, the Southern slave states had been so polarized that being defeated in war might have been the best thing for them. Life for freed blacks under Jim Crow was still an order of magnitude more dignified and less brutal than life under the whip in slavery (and cotton productivity statistics prove it). But that doesn't mean that the Southern states were not morally justified in defending their sovereign rights, until that time that the North could present a coherent moral case for their own aggression. Arguably, the North never really did that until the House passed the 13th Amendment in January 1865.
In any case, I don't think emphasizing either side of the Civil War is a particularly compelling focus for the Memorial Day holiday, which is better suited to honoring those who died serving the country as a whole against other nations. It's an odd thing, of course, because the precursors of Memorial Day grew out of practices honoring the war dead from both the North and the South after the Civil War. However, Memorial Day as a formal U.S. holiday was not enacted until during the Cold War, mainly to honor those who had died overseas defending American freedom. Even when viewed its 20th and 21st century context, though, it hearkens back to an ancient and eternal reminder that the price of freedom is blood, has always been blood, and will always be blood.
So if someone from Mississippi or South Carolina wants to fight to preserve social stability in his state against a Northern aggressor and terrorist-sympathizer who he feels might one day turn his home electorate majority black, then I don't blame him for that. Full emancipation of a dependent class of people is best done gradually. Bringing democratic self-governance and civilized freedom to people not accustomed to it is a task that can only be carried out over multiple generations, as we see in the Book of Exodus, as we saw with Indian reservations, and more recently, as we see in Russia and Afghanistan and Iraq. We still don’t have great answers about the best way to make such transitions.
In the 1860s, nobody had a good answer either. Many in the North saw no need to meddle in Southern affairs. Reconstruction eventually turned into a political disaster for the Republicans, who soon lost control of Congress in the 1874, 1876, and 1878 elections. People say that the North turned its back on blacks from 1877-1900, and they would be right, but what system could they offer as an alternative? Immediate enfranchisement and majority control of state governments by ex-slaves? That was too revolutionary to be politically practical, and due to its impracticability, a lot of hypocritical arrangements and legal fictions were erected in its place.
And let's not throw the genteel plantation owners under the bus either. They were not as bad about racial issues during the Jim Crow era as other whites. The KKK was not primarily a creation of the rich, old slaveholders. It was mostly a creation of small town whites, many of whom were either vaguely pro-Union or ambiguous about their Civil War loyalties. They simply wanted segregated cities, white dominance, and an end to Reconstruction, same as most people in the North did.
By the 1960s, full enforcement of voting rights had been a long time overdue, but few people care to admit that this could only happen, even then, because so many blacks had already moved away to the North, thus finally making the electoral system in the South more stable, and more capable of managing full enfranchisement over the coming generation.
Those favoring the North tend to resort to arguments asserting that the ends justify the means, but the question that must always be asked: Had Lincoln listened to some of his advisers and negotiated a monetary settlement for Fort Sumter, rather than resupplying a fort in an independent state, what would have happened to slavery in those 7 states? What would have happened to slavery in those other slave-holding states? Would better state-level solutions have been worked out for gradually enfranchising former slaves? Maybe.
Generally speaking, by the time 1861 came around, the Southern slave states had been so polarized that being defeated in war might have been the best thing for them. Life for freed blacks under Jim Crow was still an order of magnitude more dignified and less brutal than life under the whip in slavery (and cotton productivity statistics prove it). But that doesn't mean that the Southern states were not morally justified in defending their sovereign rights, until that time that the North could present a coherent moral case for their own aggression. Arguably, the North never really did that until the House passed the 13th Amendment in January 1865.
In any case, I don't think emphasizing either side of the Civil War is a particularly compelling focus for the Memorial Day holiday, which is better suited to honoring those who died serving the country as a whole against other nations. It's an odd thing, of course, because the precursors of Memorial Day grew out of practices honoring the war dead from both the North and the South after the Civil War. However, Memorial Day as a formal U.S. holiday was not enacted until during the Cold War, mainly to honor those who had died overseas defending American freedom. Even when viewed its 20th and 21st century context, though, it hearkens back to an ancient and eternal reminder that the price of freedom is blood, has always been blood, and will always be blood.
Posted on 5/28/17 at 4:24 pm to Doc Fenton
quote:
The Articles of Confederation also had the same language about "perpetual Union" ( LINK): "Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the states".
Did you type that right?
All the states explicitly pledged perpetual Union in 1779.
quote:
But that doesn't tell you anything about where true sovereignty lies.
Start the bullshite. Won't work.
"... we find the proposition that in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was "to form a more perfect Union."
But if destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity.
It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances."
A. Lincoln 3/4/61
LINK
Not only can no state get out of the Union on its own resolve, it is dishonorable to even suggest they can.
Posted on 5/28/17 at 4:30 pm to Doc Fenton
quote:
Also, I know that this "the Civil War was really about slavery" argument is trendy now...
"One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war."
A. Lincoln
3/4/65
Posted on 5/28/17 at 4:45 pm to Doc Fenton
quote:
Those favoring the North tend to resort to arguments asserting that the ends justify the means, but the question that must always be asked: Had Lincoln listened to some of his advisers and negotiated a monetary settlement for Fort Sumter, rather than resupplying a fort in an independent state, what would have happened to slavery in those 7 states?
No monetary settlement was considered.
Posted on 5/28/17 at 4:47 pm to Doc Fenton
quote:
...
So if someone from Mississippi or South Carolina wants to fight to preserve social stability in his state against a Northern aggressor and terrorist-sympathizer who he feels might one day turn his home electorate majority black, then I don't blame him for that. Full emancipation of a dependent class of people is best done gradually. Bringing democratic self-governance and civilized freedom to people not accustomed to it is a task that can only be carried out over multiple generations, as we see in the Book of Exodus, as we saw with Indian reservations, and more recently, as we see in Russia and Afghanistan and Iraq. We still don’t have great answers about the best way to make such transitions.
In the 1860s, nobody had a good answer either. Many in the North saw no need to meddle in Southern affairs. Reconstruction eventually turned into a political disaster for the Republicans, who soon lost control of Congress in the 1874, 1876, and 1878 elections. People say that the North turned its back on blacks from 1877-1900, and they would be right, but what system could they offer as an alternative? Immediate enfranchisement and majority control of state governments by ex-slaves? That was too revolutionary to be politically practical, and due to its impracticability, a lot of hypocritical arrangements and legal fictions were erected in its place.
And let's not throw the genteel plantation owners under the bus either. They were not as bad about racial issues during the Jim Crow era as other whites. The KKK was not primarily a creation of the rich, old slaveholders. It was mostly a creation of small town whites, many of whom were either vaguely pro-Union or ambiguous about their Civil War loyalties. They simply wanted segregated cities, white dominance, and an end to Reconstruction, same as most people in the North did.
By the 1960s, full enforcement of voting rights had been a long time overdue, but few people care to admit that this could only happen, even then, because so many blacks had already moved away to the North, thus finally making the electoral system in the South more stable, and more capable of managing full enfranchisement over the coming generation.
Those favoring the North tend to resort to arguments asserting that the ends justify the means, but the question that must always be asked: Had Lincoln listened to some of his advisers and negotiated a monetary settlement for Fort Sumter, rather than resupplying a fort in an independent state, what would have happened to slavery in those 7 states? What would have happened to slavery in those other slave-holding states? Would better state-level solutions have been worked out for gradually enfranchising former slaves? Maybe.
Generally speaking, by the time 1861 came around, the Southern slave states had been so polarized that being defeated in war might have been the best thing for them. Life for freed blacks under Jim Crow was still an order of magnitude more dignified and less brutal than life under the whip in slavery (and cotton productivity statistics prove it). But that doesn't mean that the Southern states were not morally justified in defending their sovereign rights, until that time that the North could present a coherent moral case for their own aggression. Arguably, the North never really did that until the House passed the 13th Amendment in January 1865.
In any case, I don't think emphasizing either side of the Civil War is a particularly compelling focus for the Memorial Day holiday, which is better suited to honoring those who died serving the country as a whole against other nations. It's an odd thing, of course, because the precursors of Memorial Day grew out of practices honoring the war dead from both the North and the South after the Civil War. However, Memorial Day as a formal U.S. holiday was not enacted until during the Cold War, mainly to honor those who had died overseas defending American freedom. Even when viewed its 20th and 21st century context, though, it hearkens back to an ancient and eternal reminder that the price of freedom is blood, has always been blood, and will always be blood.
Finally some sanity has entered the thread.
well done, as always -
Posted on 5/28/17 at 4:54 pm to Doc Fenton
Awesome read Doc!
Posted on 5/28/17 at 4:56 pm to Doc Fenton
quote:
So if someone from Mississippi or South Carolina wants to fight to preserve social stability in his state against a Northern aggressor and terrorist-sympathizer who he feels might one day turn his home electorate majority black, then I don't blame him for that.
RA'd for blatant racist content.
Posted on 5/28/17 at 4:58 pm to WhiskeyPapa
quote:
RA'd for blatant racist content.
If you did you should have your arse kicked.
Posted on 5/28/17 at 5:02 pm to WhiskeyPapa
quote:
RA'd for blatant racist content.
If you are serious you need to be banned immediately.
Typical of a "I need a safe space, censor anyone I don't agree with" liberal.
Posted on 5/28/17 at 5:03 pm to ChineseBandit58
quote:
RA'd for blatant racist content.
If you did you should have your arse kicked.
Why? You support racist content?
Posted on 5/28/17 at 5:07 pm to SiloamHog
quote:
the stars and bars won that war?
The Stars and Bars did not win that war. The Stars and Stripes won.
Posted on 5/28/17 at 5:10 pm to SavageOrangeJug
quote:
Typical of a "I need a safe space, censor anyone I don't agree with" liberal.
There is no protection in the law for hate speech. What the admins think is up to them.
Posted on 5/28/17 at 5:12 pm to SiloamHog
quote:The South is part of America, you dumb frick
Find a new country if you hate America
Posted on 5/28/17 at 5:15 pm to Doc Fenton
Great read. Thanks for posting. And I agree, that guy is a damn nutcase.
Posted on 5/28/17 at 5:28 pm to WhiskeyPapa
quote:
RA'd for blatant racist content.
Gosh damn what a SJW libtard race card playing little safe space fricktard you are.
Posted on 5/28/17 at 5:37 pm to WhiskeyPapa
quote:
There is no protection in the law for hate speech. What the admins think is up to them.
Actually, there is.
However, NOTHING about this is racist nor is it hate speech.
quote:
So if someone from Mississippi or South Carolina wants to fight to preserve social stability in his state against a Northern aggressor and terrorist-sympathizer who he feels might one day turn his home electorate majority black, then I don't blame him for that.
Let's address the comment. Shall we?
Why is it racist? Tell us what you feel is racist about it.
This post was edited on 5/28/17 at 5:38 pm
Page 9 of 19
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News