- 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 4/1/14 at 10:06 am to Mike da Tigah
Posted on 4/1/14 at 10:06 am to Mike da Tigah
quote:
Grant also used slave labor to, in all his drunken arrogance, try to reroute the Mississippi River in order to capture Vicksburg.
No one ever said Grant was a perfect human being. He even owned a slave his father-in-law gave to him and his wife as a wedding present. Though, to his credit, he did set him free.
As to his attempt to re-route the Mississippi River, many of his army's excursions throughout the Winter of 1862-63 were merely exercises to keep them up and moving to avoid making winter camp in a swamp.
But there was hardly anything arrogant about it. The Mississippi River had been re-routed many times before Grant's vein attempt.
Posted on 4/1/14 at 10:11 am to FT
quote:
I do think slavery was the cause; I don't think it was the cause in the way most people do. The north wasn't invading to free the slaves. That's ridiculous. At best, they were trying to keep slavery from spreading.
Slave vs non-slave states were the red and blue states of their time.
#simpleexplanation
Hypothetically, the same could be said if, say, the states went to war again. A historian could look back and equate the war to ObamaCare because there would be several declarations against it, several writings, several quotes, the states would split red/blue on that issue, etc.
But people aren't fighting about that TODAY. So the issue would have to be deeper: an anti-government overreach stance encapsulating several issues.
/end hypothetical
In the same way, the country didn't magically go to war as soon as slavery was introduced. It went to war because of several factors all tied to the same issue: there were severe disagreements on how the country should be governed.
Posted on 4/1/14 at 10:11 am to RollTide1987
quote:
But there was hardly anything arrogant about it. The Mississippi River had been re-routed many times before Grant's vein attempt.
The Mississippi River decides where the Mississippi River goes. Yes, it's arrogant as hell, and while we've succeeded in controlling its flood plains as of late, we've also paid a price for that, and you can always tell when there's flooding where that err in judgement is most evident.
Posted on 4/1/14 at 10:19 am to Mike da Tigah
quote:
The Mississippi River decides where the Mississippi River goes. Yes, it's arrogant as hell, and while we've succeeded in controlling its flood plains as of late, we've also paid a price for that, and you can always tell when there's flooding where that err in judgement is most evident.
There's no law forbidding the Mississippi River from changing its course. The Federal Government just won't allow it.
Posted on 4/1/14 at 10:25 am to theunknownknight
quote:
There's no law forbidding the Mississippi River from changing its course. The Federal Government just won't allow it.
If it moves, regulate it.
Posted on 4/1/14 at 10:46 am to Mike da Tigah
quote:
The Mississippi River decides where the Mississippi River goes. Yes, it's arrogant as hell
But there is a difference between attempting to re-route the river completely and attempting to dig a man-made channel to maneuver the Union Navy out of range of the Confederate guns atop the bluffs of Vicksburg. Grant was attempting the latter.
This post was edited on 4/1/14 at 10:53 am
Posted on 4/1/14 at 4:09 pm to FT
quote:
It's a ridiculous book, and I'm sorry, but if someone reads it and feels that it's great and gives you a real history of how things were and why, you're better of not talking to them
I am sorry that you weren't capable of seeing the book for what it is and know that it has value. I didn't buy the slave interviews so I got the book that they quoted out of and read it too. It happens to be put out by the LSU press. It was a hard read and I wanted to put it down but I am glad that I didn't. I was able to sift through the bullshite and get something out of it.
Posted on 4/1/14 at 4:52 pm to weagle99
quote:Gospel.
I believe had Jackson been alive Gettyburg could have ended differently. The effect of losing Jackson cannot be overstated...
Posted on 4/1/14 at 4:53 pm to FT
quote:
The south was right. About everything. There can be no deviation from that point. Whatever the south did, it did in reaction to a negative northern action. The slaves were treated well; the badness of slavery is overstated.
It cherry picks quotes from the Slave Narratives and uses them to make slavery seem almost like a happy, fun place where idiotic blacks loved their massa and didn't want to be free.
It's a ridiculous book,
And they really go with the Slaves were happy stuff? Just like the 'only 5% of Southerners owned slaves' they are being mislead with those Slave Narratives. Most of those ex slaves were 80-90 ish year olds & the vast majority Children during slavery by the time the Narratives were collected(1936-38).
The Slave Narratives were collected by the WPA between 1936-1938. If the Slave was born around 1855 they were 10 years old or less by the time of the 13th amendmendent/End of War.(Many were free way before 1865). In 1936 they would be 81 or older recollecting 70 plus year old childhood memories.
Even if they were born as early as 1850 & the vast majority in the narratives weren't the oldest would have been 14 & under during slavery & survived to the ripe old age of about 90.
These Slave Narratives are interesting documents ,but in reality the 70 plus year old recollections of Childhood. Most weren't sexually nor physically mature so most avoided the sexual abuse/violence/back breaking labor (for the most part) of adults.
They mostly coudn't remember most of it & the memories were of playing with other kids(slaves & Owner children), getting sweets from the big house, menial tasks around the Plantation,etc..... With Vague memories of the War, Troops coming through town(especially Colored ones stood out), but there memories of slavery /understanding of the War was limited.
The Narratives would have been far more worthwhile had they been collected 70 years earlier (1870 or so) when there were actual adult slaves still alive & memories fresh(Douglass, Northup for example).
This post was edited on 4/1/14 at 4:59 pm
Posted on 4/1/14 at 5:07 pm to sugar71
quote:
sugar71
You are pathetic. Did you just say that the blacks that lived through it and saw it all didn't know what they were talking about. I would say that they knew a lot more about it than you. Which if they knew anything it would be infinitely more than you do.
Posted on 4/1/14 at 5:30 pm to bencoleman
quote:
You are pathetic. Did you just say that the blacks that lived through it and saw it all didn't know what they were talking about. I would say that they knew a lot more about it than you. Which if they knew anything it would be infinitely more than you do.
No .But I AM saying that you are an idiot. First of all get out of here with your fake outrage.
Most of these Slaves your idiot Author liks to cite as proof of the 'happy slave' in the 1936-38 Narratives were Children like the 9/10 year old Booker T Washington who had vague memories of slavery. Washington(UP From Slavery) didn't understand why all of the adult slaves were happy, his Mother crying because he was too damn young understand the Soldier reading something of a piece of paper(didn't understand that they were free or what the hell it meant).
And like Booker T Washington it is a FACT that most of these slaves in the 1936-38 Narratives were Children during Slavery. Those Slave Narratives were interesting 70 plus year old recollections of Childhood & would have been far more worthwhile 50 years before most of the adult slaves had died.
Stop with your idiocy & fake outrage & allow the Grant discussion to continue please.
Posted on 4/1/14 at 5:33 pm to sugar71
I happen to be fifty one years old and I remember my childhood just fine. So your dumb fricking argument doesn't hold water. Just like the stat you posted that said 49% percent of a states population were slave owners. So how about you Go frick Yourself you lying sack of shite. If the slaves had said that they hated slavery and were beaten everyday you would have ate it up like the sad piece of shite that you are. So keep posting shite that anyone with an ounce of common sense can see as bullshite.
This post was edited on 4/1/14 at 5:41 pm
Posted on 4/1/14 at 5:34 pm to bencoleman
quote:Your best post thus far.
(No message)
Posted on 4/1/14 at 5:45 pm to FT
quote:
Your best post thus far
If you don't like my posts you are welcome not to read them so you frick off too dude.
Posted on 4/1/14 at 6:13 pm to sugar71
quote:Apples and Excrement comparison. Your points regarding the childhood memories of septuagenarians are solid. Your continued insistence that 25-49% of Southerners were rich enough to have owned slaves is absolute rubbish.
Just like the 'only 5% of Southerners owned slaves' they are being mislead with those Slave Narratives.
Posted on 4/1/14 at 6:13 pm to FT
quote:
y u so mad ur side lost?
It's not that, People post crap as fact, In fact three states had programs in place for the gradual assimilation of slaves based off of the Pennsylvania model which were obviously scrapped due to the events leading up to the conflict. It is always the evil south against the moral north. I just wanted to get at the truth as best as I could. I think the seeds of future conflict were sown by Virginia and Thomas Jefferson in 1780. I have read countless books on the subject from both sides and will continue to do so.
Posted on 4/1/14 at 6:17 pm to bencoleman
In my opinion Lee did more with less for far longer than Grant. Both however were great generals and Grant does get less credit than he often deserves.
As for the Slavery question, yes I think blacks would have been better off in the long term if the war had not been fought. Slavery would have eventually come to an end, but it would not have been quick. I think in the short term blacks would have been far worse off, but much of what happened following the civil war probably does not happen. The plight of freed slaves after the civil war and right up to modern day can in large part be blamed on the anger and bad blood created by reconstruction and carpet baggers. Southern whites who were already angry after losing the war were subjected to reconstruction and the overall destruction of the southern economy and oppressive carpet bagging regimes. They looked for the easiest scape goat for their plight and found the freed slaves. Without the war there is no Klan, Jim Crow, or other oppressive organizations and policies. In my opinion those were all brought about by angry southerners who wanted revenge for what came after the war.
As for the Slavery question, yes I think blacks would have been better off in the long term if the war had not been fought. Slavery would have eventually come to an end, but it would not have been quick. I think in the short term blacks would have been far worse off, but much of what happened following the civil war probably does not happen. The plight of freed slaves after the civil war and right up to modern day can in large part be blamed on the anger and bad blood created by reconstruction and carpet baggers. Southern whites who were already angry after losing the war were subjected to reconstruction and the overall destruction of the southern economy and oppressive carpet bagging regimes. They looked for the easiest scape goat for their plight and found the freed slaves. Without the war there is no Klan, Jim Crow, or other oppressive organizations and policies. In my opinion those were all brought about by angry southerners who wanted revenge for what came after the war.
Posted on 4/1/14 at 6:20 pm to theunknownknight
quote:
The idea of slavery was used to rally the north under a moral cause midway through the war.
The idea of slavery was used to prevent Britain from allying with the CSA midway through the war.
Don't know about the other.
Posted on 4/1/14 at 6:55 pm to NC_Tigah
Asked earlier, will ask again:
Where would today's 'African Americans' be had slavery never happened in the US?
Where would today's 'African Americans' be had slavery never happened in the US?
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News