- 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: Is it acceptable to wear Civil War garb in public?
Posted on 2/7/20 at 11:53 am to DustyDinkleman
Posted on 2/7/20 at 11:53 am to DustyDinkleman
While I believe secession was 100% wrong and was carried out for one of the most immoral of reasons, I can understand also why the South went through with it.
Imagine an election where a party comes out of nowhere and espouses views that directly contradict what you believe in and what you live for. Then imagine that your state and all the other states that think as you do don't even put that party's candidate on the ballot. Then imagine your shock when you find out that candidate still won the election despite winning less than 40% of the popular vote. That party is now in control of the national government despite the fact that you, no one you know, nor the other states surrounding your own didn't cast a single vote for the guy.
Now put that into its historical context. The 1850s were a rough, divisive and violent decade for the United States. The Election of 1860 was simply the climax to a tragedy that began all the way back in 1787. When you study up on the growing divided between North and South, and realize just how crazy Lincoln's election to the presidency was, you would begin to realize why the South seceded to form their own government.
Imagine an election where a party comes out of nowhere and espouses views that directly contradict what you believe in and what you live for. Then imagine that your state and all the other states that think as you do don't even put that party's candidate on the ballot. Then imagine your shock when you find out that candidate still won the election despite winning less than 40% of the popular vote. That party is now in control of the national government despite the fact that you, no one you know, nor the other states surrounding your own didn't cast a single vote for the guy.
Now put that into its historical context. The 1850s were a rough, divisive and violent decade for the United States. The Election of 1860 was simply the climax to a tragedy that began all the way back in 1787. When you study up on the growing divided between North and South, and realize just how crazy Lincoln's election to the presidency was, you would begin to realize why the South seceded to form their own government.
3
Posted on 2/7/20 at 12:01 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
you find out that candidate still won the election despite winning less than 40% of the popular vote
That'll happen when you have 4 viable candidates running for President (Lincoln, Douglas, Breckenridge, and Bell).
Also, fun fact of the day, South Carolina didn't hold popular votes for President until after the Civil War. The State Legislature chose who the state would vote for President.
This post was edited on 2/7/20 at 12:04 pm
Posted on 2/7/20 at 12:03 pm to deathvalleyfreak43
This only works if you have a tattoo of the Confederate Flag on your forehead. Otherwise, nah.
Posted on 2/7/20 at 12:04 pm to deathvalleyfreak43
Meh, that marks you as a pleb. Aristocrats go with the Jeb Stuart model
Posted on 2/7/20 at 12:09 pm to High C
quote:
I choose to doubt it.
New England had almost seceded for economic and ultimately cultural reasons.
And that was the problem, culture.
The colonist brought their old grievances with them. The American Civil War was really just a continuation of the English Civil War.
It was the same peoples, fighting the same battles.
This post was edited on 2/7/20 at 7:47 pm
Posted on 2/7/20 at 12:13 pm to Lima Whiskey
quote:
The colonist brought their old grievances with them. The American Civil War was really just a continuation of the English Civil War.
With overlays of England vs. Scotland and England/Scotland vs. Ireland.
Posted on 2/7/20 at 12:14 pm to deathvalleyfreak43
dunno.... try it out, and let us know how it goes...
Posted on 2/7/20 at 12:15 pm to Lima Whiskey
quote:
New England had almost secede
I wouldn't go nearly that far.
Posted on 2/7/20 at 12:17 pm to red sox fan 13
quote:
red sox fan 13
quote:
Sorry but you're contradicting yourself. The Confederacy was literally the USA but with slavery as a constitutional right.
New England, which was the primary driver behind the Republican Party, was settled largely by middle class Englishmen from East Anglia. They were well educated merchants, for he most part. They were also Puritans, and had a profoundly authoritarian and religious bent.
The Massachusetts Bay Colony was a theocracy, after all.
The South was very different. It looked backwards towards feudal English society as a social model.
Hence the manor homes, which operated as small villages, and the emergence of a rural aristocracy, who dominated both politics, and economic life in the south.
Where centralized state power was seen as a social good in New England, a tool to correct behavior, it was seen as a threat to personal liberty in the south.
One small example of the cultural difference, in the north charity (welfare) was considered the responsibility of the state. In the south, it was a personal, and communal obligation.
This post was edited on 2/7/20 at 12:38 pm
Posted on 2/7/20 at 12:19 pm to deathvalleyfreak43
Fashion board?
Posted on 2/7/20 at 12:21 pm to Lima Whiskey
quote:
it was seen as a threat to personal liberty in the south.
It was seen as a threat to the entrenched power of the elite. The rich wanted to stay rich.
Posted on 2/7/20 at 12:22 pm to deathvalleyfreak43
quote:
Also tried to explain that I was just honoring my relatives...
Celebrating losers is why this country has gone to shite so frick you
Posted on 2/7/20 at 12:26 pm to GetCocky11
quote:
It was seen as a threat to the entrenched power of the elite. The rich wanted to stay rich.
That sounds like Marxist history
Southerners of all classes were opposed to intrusion into their personal and economic lives. And you still see that attitude today.
Posted on 2/7/20 at 12:51 pm to deathvalleyfreak43
I don’t care if you wear it.
My great-great-great grandfather fought and was captured at Vicksburg with the 26th or 27th Louisiana infantry regiment. I also have ancestors that fought with the good guys in the Revolutionary war.
We’ve been here a long time.
My great-great-great grandfather fought and was captured at Vicksburg with the 26th or 27th Louisiana infantry regiment. I also have ancestors that fought with the good guys in the Revolutionary war.
We’ve been here a long time.
This post was edited on 2/7/20 at 12:57 pm
Posted on 2/7/20 at 12:53 pm to WestCoastAg
quote:
quote: the Civil War was about states rights and not slavery. Also tried to explain that I was just honoring my relatives...
What is so funny? It was about state's rights. The rights of their residents to OWN fellow residents.
Posted on 2/7/20 at 12:59 pm to deathvalleyfreak43
quote:
I have worn my LSU #7 jersey and a traditional grey Kepi (example pictured below) with a 18th Louisiana insignia pin.
Show us
Posted on 2/7/20 at 1:12 pm to Lima Whiskey
Well damn, I stand corrected. We were simply giving work and land to the less fortunate as long as they tended to it. Sounds like a great deal for both the land owners and workers. Too bad the Tyrant Lincoln and his barbarian hordes tried to ruin the perfectly good system. 
Posted on 2/7/20 at 2:56 pm to red sox fan 13
It was just a different system, born of very different cultural values.
Posted on 2/7/20 at 2:58 pm to High C
quote:
quote:
the Civil War was about states rights and not slavery
You had me until this. C'mon.
This. Right exactly where I stopped reading.
Posted on 2/7/20 at 3:33 pm to GetCocky11
quote:
That'll happen when you have 4 viable candidates running for President (Lincoln, Douglas, Breckenridge, and Bell).
And that's the ironic thing about the whole mess, had the Democrats unified behind a single candidate (like Douglas), they would have trounced Lincoln. But the nation was so divided by 1860 that political parties like the Democrats were going through their own miniature civil war. Northern and Southern Democrats split during the 1860 election, while the Constitutional Union Party formed as a sort of middle ground for the Upper South to cling to.
Page 5 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News