- 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
1
Posted on 2/17/20 at 9:17 am to TH03
quote:
TH03
Posted on 2/17/20 at 9:18 am to TT9
quote:
or whine and complain like a spurned teenage girl when someone says something bad about him?
No. Andrew Jackson would just challenge them to a duel and kill them.
In his lifetime, Jackson was reportedly involved in more than 100 duels, many of them occurring while he was President of the United States. For example, he once shot a man in a duel who accused him of cheating on a horse race bet.
Upon leaving office, he reportedly told a confidant that his two greatest regrets were failing to kill Henry Clay and John C. Calhoun. Clay was the opposition leader in the Senate and Calhoun was his Vice-President.
This post was edited on 2/17/20 at 9:23 am
Posted on 2/17/20 at 9:18 am to Pandy Fackler
quote:
Andrew Jackson liked pissing on strippers?
Posted on 2/17/20 at 9:19 am to Pandy Fackler
Posted on 2/17/20 at 9:19 am to Man With A Plan
this fricking thread 
Posted on 2/17/20 at 9:19 am to nola000
Yes or no. Today, if a states were able to decide whether or not slavery was legal.. And there were some states where it was still legal and there were plantations in which humans were being treated as property. You would be okay with that?
Again. Yes or No.
Again. Yes or No.
Posted on 2/17/20 at 9:19 am to Man With A Plan
Yeah, you're an idiot
Posted on 2/17/20 at 9:20 am to The Boat
What's with that sky screaming gif? Why are you melting?
Posted on 2/17/20 at 9:23 am to RollTide1987
quote:
And what if all of that was going on in the midst of a civil war where Americans were dying by their thousands and the fate of our Republic was at stake?
They were dying because of his actions to militarize and attack, were they not?
quote:
If he hadn't taken a firm hand, Maryland would have seceded.
Wouldn't that preclude thousands dying? If Lincoln took those actions to prevent Maryland secession, then Lincoln knew he was going to start a war and that many would die as a result, correct?
Posted on 2/17/20 at 9:30 am to BugAC
quote:
They were dying because of his actions to militarize and attack, were they not?
Last I checked, the Confederacy fired the first shot of the war BEFORE militarization. In April 1861, the U.S. Army numbered less than 16,000 men.
quote:
If Lincoln took those actions to prevent Maryland secession, then Lincoln knew he was going to start a war and that many would die as a result, correct?
He took those actions AFTER Fort Sumter was fired upon. War had begun and he was taking decisive measures to make sure Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, and Delaware didn't follow the Upper South into the Confederacy.
Posted on 2/17/20 at 9:30 am to RollTide1987
quote:
If you are the President of the United States, your first job is to protect the nation and you can't do that when your national capital is within the borders of a hostile nation. He did what he had to do in the moment and left the second-guessing to the historians.
What if half the country (all coalesced in one general area) wanted out?
Furthermore, do you think that if the North would’ve just allowed the South to secede there would have been a war of the magnitude of the Civil War?
Posted on 2/17/20 at 9:34 am to RollTide1987
quote:
Last I checked, the Confederacy fired the first shot of the war BEFORE militarization.
They did, at Ft. Sumter. I'm not saying you are right or wrong, just trying to have a discussion. What was the timeline of Maryland secession, or the stopping thereof?
quote:
He took those actions AFTER Fort Sumter was fired upon. War had begun and he was taking decisive measures to make sure Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, and Delaware didn't follow the Upper South into the Confederacy.
Why did they want to follow the Upper South into the Confederacy? It couldn't be solely because of the slave trade, could it? There was a list of unconstitutional actions Lincoln made that was posted earlier. I've also read/watched about Lincoln's unpopularity. Could this have played a part?
Again, don't take this as me trying to argue, just trying to have a conversation.
Posted on 2/17/20 at 9:35 am to The Spleen
The draft has never been popular even in those times. The north had draft riots in New York City. The draft was frowned upon in the south. That is why if you look at all the successful wars in American history, it was won by many who were voluntary. Many volunteered in second World war before the draft began because they didn't want to be shamed as being drafted.
The desertion was much higher on the south towards the end of the war. It was so bad that officers didn't bother trying to catch them. The union forced thousands of foreigners that came right off the boat to fight in the war. The battle of Pea Ridge involved a regiment of german speaking soldiers from the union.
The desertion was much higher on the south towards the end of the war. It was so bad that officers didn't bother trying to catch them. The union forced thousands of foreigners that came right off the boat to fight in the war. The battle of Pea Ridge involved a regiment of german speaking soldiers from the union.
Posted on 2/17/20 at 9:37 am to TigerFanInSouthland
quote:
What if half the country (all coalesced in one general area) wanted out?
What if the other half of the country believed wanting out was an unconstitutional act and therefore illegal? Do you think they'd just let bygones be bygones? Obviously that isn't what happened.
quote:
Furthermore, do you think that if the North would’ve just allowed the South to secede there would have been a war of the magnitude of the Civil War?
Difficult to say as that isn't what happened. It's very likely that there eventually would have been a war between the United States and the Confederacy and it's likely the spark would have come over a dispute concerning the western territories.
Posted on 2/17/20 at 9:37 am to BugAC
quote:
I do wonder, personally, how things would have ended up without the Civil War, though. Would slavery survive? How different would the landscape look? Would the Confederacy survive? Would the idea of the US have survived, with a split nation? Would the British retake the US with a divided nation?
We can only speculate. Me, I think the CSA would have collapsed within 10 years or so. THeir economy just wasn't diversified and was almost entirely built on cotton. That market was already showing signs of decline in the years leading up to the Civil War.
Would the US have accepted them back into the fold upon their collapse? I don't have any guess on that.
Would slavery have organically gone away. I'm not convinced it would have. Just look at the 100 years in the south after the Civil War. The rise of the KKK, Jim Crow laws, the rise of the Dixiecrat party, etc. Some of that was a thumbing of the nose towards the Reconstruction efforts post-Civil War, but a lot of it was also an ingrained belief in the south, especially among the ruling class.
Posted on 2/17/20 at 9:38 am to geauxtigers456
quote:
inner city hero who inspired so many, President Barack Hussein Obama.
inspired them to do what? sit on their arse awaiting more government handouts from people that actually work?
Posted on 2/17/20 at 9:40 am to BugAC
quote:
What was the timeline of Maryland secession, or the stopping thereof?
Maryland was unstable from the start, but the threat of Maryland seceding from the United States became very real in the immediate aftermath of Fort Sumter and Lincoln's call for 75,000 volunteers.
quote:
Why did they want to follow the Upper South into the Confederacy? It couldn't be solely because of the slave trade, could it? There was a list of unconstitutional actions Lincoln made that was posted earlier.
Slavery was a major factor but so was their belief that Lincoln did not have the authority to raise an army to invade his own country. Those unconstitutional actions you speak of weren't enacted until Maryland began signaling a possible intent to secede. He locked people up, suspended Habeas corpus and freedom of the press as a direct result of Maryland's militancy.
I'm not saying he was right to do it, I'm simply saying that's what he did. It's easy to say it was wrong in hindsight but you need to put yourself in his position and in the time period he was in.
This post was edited on 2/17/20 at 9:42 am
Posted on 2/17/20 at 9:45 am to Man With A Plan
Lincoln was a shite president.
Page 5 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News