- 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: Civil War Confederate veteran interview
Posted on 10/26/22 at 8:18 am to PrimeTime Money
Posted on 10/26/22 at 8:18 am to PrimeTime Money
quote:
He said the South did not fight for the preservation or extension of slavery. They were fighting for states rights.
There are still people that believe we invaded Iraq over WMD's.
0
Posted on 10/26/22 at 8:20 am to Man With A Plan
quote:
Man With A Plan
Who fired the first shot at Ft Sumpter?
Holy shite, don't any of y'all numbskulls take the time to actually learn history instead of just repeating what some other scumbag said and taking it as gospel?
This post was edited on 10/26/22 at 8:24 am
Posted on 10/26/22 at 8:22 am to BAMAMAN73
quote:
Slavery was a very minor cause, if one at all.
WTF?
quote:
We all know the North was just as bad as the South when it came to the treatment of blacks, and to be honest, it sounds like from this guy that the blacks didn’t have it too bad back then even with slavery going on.
WTF?
quote:
Shows how much propaganda hammered into people for decades can completely change the perception of something.
You have shown that, just not in the way you think.
quote:
BAMAMAN73
Oh, carry on.
Posted on 10/26/22 at 8:26 am to red sox fan 13
this thread is weird. the last page is "whacked" and the video in the OP isn't on youtube anymore.
Posted on 10/26/22 at 8:29 am to finchmeister08
quote:
the video in the OP isn't on youtube anymore.
yeah, thats weird.
Its pretty easy to find on YouTube still
YouTube
Posted on 10/26/22 at 3:11 pm to greenbean
The South fighting the civil war for slavery is at the least misleading. Where prior to the war was abolition of slavery a serious policy proposal? Slavery was talked about in the secession documents, but that was about secession, not going to war. So you could say they seceded over slavery in the Deep South, but not over a threat of abolition, but rather the expansion of slavery, which was tied up in both political power in terms of the national government, as well as northern desire to keep the west open for free whites. Perhaps it’s just meant colloquially that the South fought for slavery but given that this is an issue perpetually argued about, it should probably be stated more clearly, and thus more fairly to the South.
This post was edited on 10/26/22 at 3:13 pm
Posted on 10/26/22 at 5:43 pm to red sox fan 13
fricking YouTube took it down. Those people need to be Musked!
Posted on 10/27/22 at 8:42 am to RollTide1987
quote:
It wasn’t the average southerner that plunged the south into secession and civil war, however. The elites were the ones calling the shots. They all owned slaves. Men like the guy in the OP were simply the pawns.
This strikes me as a rhetorical move to pry southerners away from defending the Confederacy, but it’s not literally true and to the extent that it has truth to it, it basically applies to any government or state. Would you say that the elites in the North plunged the North into war and national empire, or do you think that these things were aspirations of the common Northerner?
The South seceded by state conventions that were legitimate as far as any government is capable of legitimacy, and Southerners were committed to defending their new legitimate independence as far as I’ve read. There need not have been a war but for the North not allowing the Southern states to leave. The confederacy negotiated for peace. So, if anything, the northern elite (really the Republicans) plunged the entire former US into war.
So if the elite are responsible for plunging the common man into war, this is not specific to the South and its elite but is much more applicable to the US northern elite, there was no war but for their insistence upon denying legitimate independence.
Posted on 10/27/22 at 9:03 am to wadewilson
9 Alabama fans who think slaves didn't have it so bad have downvoted my post so far.
This post was edited on 10/27/22 at 9:05 am
Posted on 10/27/22 at 9:17 am to Sayre
quote:
Who fired the first shot at Ft Sumpter?
Holy shite, don't any of y'all numbskulls take the time to actually learn history instead of just repeating what some other scumbag said and taking it as gospel?
quote:
Ft Sumpter?
By the way, the first shots were indeed fired by Confederate batteries sited on shore surrounding Fort Sumter. But there is more to it than just the Confederates “wanting” the war to happen. Remember, South Carolina had already left the Union and considered itself a country. Thus, the American forces occupying Fort Sumter were seen as a foreign occupying force. South Carolina had already sent emissaries to Washington to try to peacefully negotiate the transfer of Federal properties in South Carolina. They were seeking a peaceful spilt with the US. Lincoln knew this but refused. It was Lincoln’s decision to send provisions to the Federal garrison at Fort Sumter that lead to the bombardment of Fort Sumter. Lincoln knew sending Provo would spark a war, all while Southern emissaries were in Washington trying to find a peaceful solution. Lincoln chose war.
Posted on 10/27/22 at 9:33 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
Thus, the American forces occupying Fort Sumter were seen as a foreign occupying force.
South Carolina ceded that land to the federal government about 30 years prior.
Posted on 10/27/22 at 10:39 am to GetCocky11
quote:
South Carolina ceded that land to the federal government about 30 years prior.
From the perspective of South Carolina, that agreement was made null and void once they passed the Ordnance of Secession in December 1860. And as of Feb. 1861 South Carolina had joined with other Southern states to form the Confederate States of America.
So again, as I said, once South Carolina left the Union, it saw a foreign power occupying a fort in the middle of their main seaport as an untenable situation. Thus, they sent emissaries to that foreign power, the United States of America, to negotiate a settlement to remove that occupation force.
South Carolina had broken no laws as there was nothing legally preventing a state from leaving the union. They wanted to go their own way, along with the other Southern states and form their own constitutional republic. Lincoln had no legal recourse to force them to stay. Lincoln could, and really from a legal standpoint should, have chosen to allow them go their own way in peace. He chose not to. He chose to provoke a war. And following the start of that war, Lincoln immediately moved to raise an army and invade the confederacy.
Posted on 10/27/22 at 10:42 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
From the perspective of South Carolina, that agreement was made null and void once they passed the Ordnance of Secession in December 1860.
Yeah, that is an incredibly weak argument. It wasn't an agreement. It was ceded via a law that was debated, voted on, and passed by the SC state legislature.
This post was edited on 10/27/22 at 10:44 am
Posted on 10/27/22 at 10:56 am to GetCocky11
quote:
The Articles of Secession is basically their version of the Declaration of Independence. He isn’t referencing some notes scribbled on a napkin on a bar The document literally gives the reasons for leaving the Union
You expect us to believe that?
Posted on 10/27/22 at 11:05 am to GetCocky11
quote:
Yeah, that is an incredibly weak argument. It wasn't an agreement. It was ceded via a law that was debated, voted on, and passed by the SC state legislature.
Your counterpoint is patently absurd and completely ignores the context of the fact South Carolina had dissolved all ties to the United States. Once this action was taken South Carolina considered any and all agreements with the US, including laws, as being null and void. You’re ignoring this fact either due to willful ignorance or a refusal to set aside your emotions on the matter of the Civil War and look at from a strictly legal and historic standpoint.
Frankly, I’m disappointed and must say I thought better of you.
This post was edited on 10/27/22 at 11:06 am
Posted on 10/27/22 at 11:09 am to PrimeTime Money
quote:Yes, very interesting that an elderly traitor was willing to parrot tired Lost Cause talking points in his dotage.
The last part was very interesting. He said the South did not fight for the preservation or extension of slavery. They were fighting for states rights.
Posted on 10/27/22 at 11:10 am to udtiger
quote:I mean, it's literally what half the poli board is claiming about the military now.
He has no idea what he was fighting for.
Sincerely,
Arrogant liberals
Posted on 10/27/22 at 11:12 am to Sus-Scrofa
quote:
If slavery was a cause, you can’t call it minor. It’s fricking slavery. The “didn’t have it too bad” line you typed is a horrible terrifying statement. Again, we’re talking human slavery, it can’t be downplayed or brushed aside.
Calm your tits Nancy. It’s slavery, not the holocaust
This post was edited on 10/27/22 at 11:13 am
Posted on 10/27/22 at 11:14 am to tigerdup07
quote:
they sought freedom
Lol
Posted on 10/27/22 at 11:20 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
refusal to set aside your emotions on the matter of the Civil War and look at from a strictly legal and historic standpoint.
Citing a law is apparently emotional now.
Page 6 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News