- 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: Abraham Lincoln radically changed the nature of the Civil War on this day 161 years ago
Posted on 9/22/23 at 2:42 pm to DakIsNoLB
Posted on 9/22/23 at 2:42 pm to DakIsNoLB
quote:
Sherman did his job. This is warfare. You play for keeps and do what has to be done to make the other side give up.
At this point in history it was considered very poor form, Lee refused to do this saying he will not fighy anyone that doesnt take up arms against him. Union officers even remarked about how little damage southern armies did to private property while in the north. The South on the way to Gettysburg could have literally burned up the east coast. One side commited war crimes and it was almost exlusively the union.
Posted on 9/22/23 at 2:43 pm to AU66
quote:
I like hearing the truth and Lincoln launched a war to stop southern seccession which was gauranteed by the 10th amendment. The constitution is quite on the issue so the states are relegated the power, Lincoln was a tyrant. Sorry to break it to you union just causers.
I would love to hear your constitutional law analysis on how the 10th amendment guaranteed secession.
I would also love to hear who taught you how to spell the words "secession" and "guaranteed".
Posted on 9/22/23 at 2:45 pm to DakIsNoLB
quote:
I meant this to say that slavery being on the way out isn't a defense to let it run it's course. They were too far away from it running it's course to let it continue.
Agreed.. I'm not sure how anyone could argue otherwise.
Posted on 9/22/23 at 2:50 pm to thejuiceisloose
quote:
10th amendment guaranteed secession. I would also love to hear who taught you how to spell the words "secession" and "guaranteed
Well kinda hard to type when your driving on a deserted long stretch of highway, as far as gaurateeing the right of secession its a lot stronger than the weak Texas ruling that supposedly ruled seccession unlawful in 69. The tenth CLEARLY defines it. Theres a reason no confederates were tried for treason, Jeff Davis practicaly begged for it. The Union was advised against it.
This post was edited on 9/22/23 at 2:54 pm
Posted on 9/22/23 at 2:55 pm to McGruff21
quote:
All your history threads absolutely suck. They should be downvoted into oblivion
A- this is not true
B- clearly an alter
Posted on 9/22/23 at 2:55 pm to GetCocky11
quote:so show the information... because "Something like" isnt very confident.
The 1860 Census is a beautiful thing.
Posted on 9/22/23 at 2:56 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
He did. Ever heard of the Thirteenth Amendment?
A whopping 2 years after the Emancipation Proclamation. Sounds more like political pandering than anything.
President Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, effective on January 1, 1863, declared that the enslaved in Confederate-controlled areas were free.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Thirteenth Amendment (Amendment XIII) to the United States Constitution abolished slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime. The amendment was passed by the Senate on April 8, 1864, by the House of Representatives on January 31, 1865, and ratified by the required 27 of the then 36 states on December 6, 1865, and proclaimed on December 18. It was the first of the three Reconstruction Amendments adopted following the American Civil War.
Posted on 9/22/23 at 2:58 pm to PrezCock
quote:
Lincoln had no authority to free the slaves in the CSA. It was all just smoke and mirrors.
And yet slaves who wandered into Union lines in the aftermath of the Emancipation Proclamation were not returned to their owners.
Posted on 9/22/23 at 3:06 pm to DakIsNoLB
quote:amazing you condemn slavery yet celebrate Sherman.
Sherman did his job. This is warfare. You play for keeps and do what has to be done to make the other side give up.
Posted on 9/22/23 at 3:09 pm to RollTide1987
quote:Nope, they were handed a gun and told turn around and go fight.
And yet slaves who wandered into Union lines in the aftermath of the Emancipation Proclamation were not returned to their owners.
Posted on 9/22/23 at 3:09 pm to CarRamrod
quote:
so show the information... because "Something like" isnt very confident.
If you were truly interested, you would look it up yourself.
Posted on 9/22/23 at 3:10 pm to AU66
quote:
At this point in history it was considered very poor form, Lee refused to do this saying he will not fighy anyone that doesnt take up arms against him. Union officers even remarked about how little damage southern armies did to private property while in the north. The South on the way to Gettysburg could have literally burned up the east coast. One side commited war crimes and it was almost exlusively the union.
Next time just say the South FAFO.
Posted on 9/22/23 at 3:12 pm to RollTide1987
Abe Lincoln was a homo.
Posted on 9/22/23 at 3:18 pm to GetCocky11
quote:oohh you are one of those debaters?
ou were truly interested, you would look it up yourself.
Posted on 9/22/23 at 3:19 pm to RollTide1987
I prefer countries that didn’t lose civil wars.
Posted on 9/22/23 at 3:19 pm to CarRamrod
quote:
oohh you are one of those debaters?
I'm not wrong.
Posted on 9/22/23 at 3:19 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
And yet slaves who wandered into Union lines in the aftermath of the Emancipation Proclamation were not returned to their owners.
Which I'm sure was done for completely empathetic reasons. That isn't even the point that I would argue. The point I argue is that the Emancipation Proclamation was just window dressing. It did not do a damn thing, it did not free a single slave. It was a purely political stunt. If it wasn't, and it was done with the purest of intentions, well then Lincoln would have freed every slave. North, South, Border States. But, he didn't. He isn't the hero he is made out to be.
Posted on 9/22/23 at 3:20 pm to CarRamrod
quote:
oohh you are one of those debaters?
People who shite on the Socratic Method have always amused me.
Posted on 9/22/23 at 3:22 pm to AU66
quote:
At this point in history it was considered very poor form, Lee refused to do this saying he will not fighy anyone that doesnt take up arms against him. Union officers even remarked about how little damage southern armies did to private property while in the north. The South on the way to Gettysburg could have literally burned up the east coast. One side commited war crimes and it was almost exlusively the union.
These were his orders:
quote:
IV. The army will forage liberally on the country during the march. To this end, each brigade commander will organize a good and sufficient foraging party, under the command of one or more discreet officers, who will gather, near the route traveled, corn or forage of any kind, meat of any kind, vegetables, corn-meal, or whatever is needed by the command, aiming at all times to keep in the wagons at least ten days' provisions for the command and three days' forage. Soldiers must not enter the dwellings of the inhabitants, or commit any trespass, but during a halt or a camp they may be permitted to gather turnips, apples, and other vegetables, and to drive in stock in sight of their camp. To regular foraging parties must be intrusted the gathering of provisions and forage at any distance from the road traveled.
V. To army corps commanders alone is intrusted the power to destroy mills, houses, cotton-gins, &c., and for them this general principle is laid down: In districts and neighborhoods where the army is unmolested no destruction of such property should be permitted; but should guerrillas or bushwhackers molest our march, or should the inhabitants burn bridges, obstruct roads, or otherwise manifest local hostility, then army commanders should order and enforce a devastation more or less relentless according to the measure of such hostility.
VI. As for horses, mules, wagons, &c., belonging to the inhabitants, the cavalry and artillery may appropriate freely and without limit, discriminating, however, between the rich, who are usually hostile, and the poor or industrious, usually neutral or friendly. Foraging parties may also take mules or horses to replace the jaded animals of their trains, or to serve as pack-mules for the regiments or brigades. In all foraging, of whatever kind, the parties engaged will refrain from abusive or threatening language, and may, where the officer in command thinks proper, give written certificates of the facts, but no receipts, and they will endeavor to leave with each family a reasonable portion for their maintenance.
VII. Negroes who are able-bodied and can be of service to the several columns may be taken along, but each army commander will bear in mind that the question of supplies is a very important one and that his first duty is to see to them who bear arms...
How are his armies strayed from these orders, I don't know.
And Robert E. Lee, whether he would have or not, had have known that if he did go after Northern infrastructure and property, then invading Northen armies thereafter would follow suit. I'm guessing he would not risk it especially since he wanted local support.
Posted on 9/22/23 at 3:22 pm to RollTide1987
Why do you regurgitate the same 50-60 threads every year, is it to start shite?
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News