- 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: On this day 158 years ago, Vicksburg surrendered to Union forces (July 4, 1863)
Posted on 7/4/21 at 7:39 pm to greenbean
Posted on 7/4/21 at 7:39 pm to greenbean
quote:
This was nothing but a "rich man's" war with the average southerner gaining nothing, but suffering
Invading armies were killing their brothers and cousins.
2
Posted on 7/4/21 at 7:47 pm to IceTiger
quote:
Invading armies were killing their brothers and cousins.
They wouldn't have gotten killed if they hadn't shown up to an open field with a gun.
Posted on 7/4/21 at 7:50 pm to RollTide1987
They would not have killed them if they'd stayed home and not invaded their cousins homes.
Posted on 7/4/21 at 8:06 pm to IceTiger
quote:
Invading armies were killing their brothers and cousins.
I'm assuming you realize who started it? If not, it was rich southerners.
This post was edited on 7/4/21 at 8:11 pm
Posted on 7/4/21 at 8:10 pm to RollTide1987
frick the confederacy
Posted on 7/4/21 at 8:50 pm to greenbean
quote:
I'm assuming you realize who started it? If not, it was rich southerners.
Oh fun, another Marxist.
Tell us more about class warfare.
Posted on 7/5/21 at 6:59 am to Lima Whiskey
It's not Marxist to tell the truth about those who had everything to lose in the war or if it were avoided the elimination of slavery.
If you say the fight was over States rights, please let me know what rights were being threatened other than those rights that they were getting an advantage from due to.....slavery. Slavery gave the South an advantage in the House of Representatives because of the 3/5 rule for apportionment. The white planters got the advantage on that. More representation but not that many more voters....I mean, the slaves could not vote, unless I'm missing something.
If you say the fight was over States rights, please let me know what rights were being threatened other than those rights that they were getting an advantage from due to.....slavery. Slavery gave the South an advantage in the House of Representatives because of the 3/5 rule for apportionment. The white planters got the advantage on that. More representation but not that many more voters....I mean, the slaves could not vote, unless I'm missing something.
Posted on 7/5/21 at 8:13 am to antibarner
quote:
They would not have killed them if they'd stayed home and not invaded their cousins homes.
I don't believe that was the original plan. The original plan was to march on Richmond, declare the Confederate Congress an unlawful assembly, and restore the Southern states to the Union with minimal bloodshed.
Posted on 7/5/21 at 8:59 am to Tiger in Texas
quote:
Screw you a-hole- the wrong side lost! The war was fought over state rights, slaverly was a secondary issue. Even if the South would have won, slavery would have ended withing 10-15 years regardless.
If it was a secondary issue, why did the states that seceded specifically say they were doing it because of issues related to slavery?
You ignorant know nothings that repeat some bullshite you read on some idiot website really need to go back to the historical sources so you won't be laughed at so heartily.
Posted on 7/5/21 at 9:01 am to RollTide1987
Well, it's like this. Regardless of the motives, the people there made the decision to form their own government.
Their representatives voted to do so. There was no Emancipation Proclamation at the time, indeed, if the truth were known, Lincoln would have thrown the slaves under the bus if there had been one to hold the Union together.
There can be valid arguments made that secession was(and maybe still is )legal. The aggressors and maybe illegally clearly were the Unionists.
Their representatives voted to do so. There was no Emancipation Proclamation at the time, indeed, if the truth were known, Lincoln would have thrown the slaves under the bus if there had been one to hold the Union together.
There can be valid arguments made that secession was(and maybe still is )legal. The aggressors and maybe illegally clearly were the Unionists.
Posted on 7/5/21 at 9:03 am to IceTiger
quote:
.nowhere in any war speech or any diary did a grunt say "I'm fight to keep my slaves"
The exact opposite of this is the truth. The speeches that stated slavery was of primacy are beyond numerous, and the letters that the average soldier sent home are full or reference to exactly why they were fighting, even if those specific soldiers didn't own slaves themselves.
Don't believe me? Check out the book Elaine Thompson, PhD, wrote about the town of Clinton in East Feliciana parish. That's just one of the many listing original sources that show you have no clue what you're talking about.
Posted on 7/5/21 at 9:05 am to greenbean
quote:
I'm assuming you realize who started it? If not, it was rich southerners.
You can make an equally if not better argument that it was rich northerners.
Posted on 7/5/21 at 9:10 am to Sayre
Slavery was doomed, war or not. It was morally repugnant and would have withered on the vine. But you miss the larger point.The point WAS States Rights. Whether a central government had the power to tell a state what it could or could not do, regardless of what the issue was. The Constitution expressly reserves powers not in it to The States. We still fight those wars today, just over other issues.People back then felt a much larger allegiance to their state then they did to the nation. General Lee could not take up arms against Virginia for example.
We make the mistake of looking at an 18th century world through our eyes. Believe me, if they could have looked forward and seen some of the shite today they would have plenty to kick us over, and be more than justified doing it.
We make the mistake of looking at an 18th century world through our eyes. Believe me, if they could have looked forward and seen some of the shite today they would have plenty to kick us over, and be more than justified doing it.
This post was edited on 7/5/21 at 9:13 am
Posted on 7/5/21 at 9:19 am to SavageOrangeJug
quote:
Meanwhile, 158 years later. We have idiots that support BLM.
Might be a good way to get rid of vehicles the police don't want. Just park one near a protest and leave it.
Let the protesters go to town and laugh at them.
Posted on 7/5/21 at 10:05 am to antibarner
The only true states rights issue that the South truly cared about was slavery and whether they could expand it into the new territories. What else was all the bloodshed in Kansas about if not primarily slavery and its expansion? New immigrants to the country were going to see their earnings severly depressed and their hopes of owning land severly impacted if slavery expands into Eastern Kansas and Nebraska. The appetite of the southern landowner class was enormous when it came to land acquisition, mainly because growing cotton was profitable but also took an impact on the soil.
The North was tired of this planter class and their outsized privilege granted to them by the 3/5 rule. Slavery really was all they cared about because slavery was the institution on which Southern influence stood upon. Like I said, show me where other than slave holding where southern " rights" were being trampled on?
Tarriffs? Both the North and South were affected. Maybe the South moreso because they liked to import more in and they were certainly exporting a lot of cotton. They bitched about how they were paying off revolutionary war debt, but in reality that was settled long before....and it certainly was not the reason that average white Southerners were poorer than average white northerners. The Southern planter class had every reason to keep the poorer whites down but fixate them on the issue of rights as though Northern types wanted to keep them down....their own Southern aristocrats were doing a good job of that already.
The North was tired of this planter class and their outsized privilege granted to them by the 3/5 rule. Slavery really was all they cared about because slavery was the institution on which Southern influence stood upon. Like I said, show me where other than slave holding where southern " rights" were being trampled on?
Tarriffs? Both the North and South were affected. Maybe the South moreso because they liked to import more in and they were certainly exporting a lot of cotton. They bitched about how they were paying off revolutionary war debt, but in reality that was settled long before....and it certainly was not the reason that average white Southerners were poorer than average white northerners. The Southern planter class had every reason to keep the poorer whites down but fixate them on the issue of rights as though Northern types wanted to keep them down....their own Southern aristocrats were doing a good job of that already.
Posted on 7/5/21 at 10:27 am to KiwiHead
quote:
Northern types wanted to keep them down....their own Southern aristocrats were doing a good job of that already.
Yes because policies from Washington DC, Boston and New York have been great for the South. If only we could get more political, economic and social guidance from Northerners.
Posted on 7/5/21 at 10:33 am to KiwiHead
MAYBE the South more so? They didn't make a lot there as far as manufactured goods, why do you think the blockade was so effective? The South couldn't sell and ship cotton or anything else to raise money for the war effort. If they had the money they couldn't bring in what they needed because they didn't produce enough .
You basically admitted the war was all about money and who had it when you said the North was tired of the planter class and why. They didn't give a damn about slavery they cared about their wallets.
You basically admitted the war was all about money and who had it when you said the North was tired of the planter class and why. They didn't give a damn about slavery they cared about their wallets.
This post was edited on 7/5/21 at 10:36 am
Posted on 7/5/21 at 11:06 am to antibarner
There was no war to eliminate slavery, at least not initially, The fighting began after secession when the Federals wouldn’t give up their forts on Southern soil. Slavery didn’t become a goal until after Antietam,
If the South had remained in the Union there would never have been a war. Things would have continued until there was a political solution to slavery.
The war was started to preserve the Union.
If the South had remained in the Union there would never have been a war. Things would have continued until there was a political solution to slavery.
The war was started to preserve the Union.
Posted on 7/5/21 at 11:14 am to antibarner
quote:
Pemberton was an idiot
Couldn't believe they named the mall after him.
Posted on 7/5/21 at 11:15 am to doubleb
quote:
The war was started to preserve the Union.
And the southern tax base.
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News