- 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 10/27/22 at 11:21 am to Darth_Vader
Posted on 10/27/22 at 11:21 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
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.
Are you Putin's advisor?
0
Posted on 10/27/22 at 11:24 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
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.
"Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state." - An Act to Cede to the United States Various Forts and Fortifications, And Sites for the Erection of Forts (1856)
Posted on 10/27/22 at 11:25 am to Darth_Vader
quote:South Carolina could no more easily ignore a title translative of ownership than any citizen can ignore the sale of their home or Cuba could ignore the lease granted to the United States for Naval Station Guantanamo Bay.
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.
From both a legal and historical standpoint, Fort Sumter was wholly owned by the federal government, lock, stock, and barrel.
Posted on 10/27/22 at 11:26 am to Salviati
quote:
Cuba could ignore the lease granted to the United States for Naval Station Guantanamo Bay.
Darth should have no problem with Cuba invading Guantanamo Bay.
Posted on 10/27/22 at 11:27 am to GetCocky11
quote:
The war was all about states rights.
states rights to... own slaves.
Posted on 10/27/22 at 11:28 am to GetCocky11
quote:
Citing a law is apparently emotional now.
Citing laws when the governing body that passed said law had declared that law null and void is you either being (A) willfully ignorant or (b) too emotionally attached to your preconceived worldview to look at the matter from a rational historic standpoint.
Posted on 10/27/22 at 11:35 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
iting laws when the governing body that passed said law had declared that law null and void
Yeah, that isn't how that works. Saying it doesn't make it true.
Posted on 10/27/22 at 11:39 am to Salviati
quote:
South Carolina could no more easily ignore a title translative of ownership than any citizen can ignore the sale of their home or Cuba could ignore the lease granted to the United States for Naval Station Guantanamo Bay.
Land agreements between separate counties are not like you selling or leasing an acre of land to your neighbor. I’m your example if Cuba chose to end the lease of Guntanamo, there are two ways to make it happen:
1. Peaceful negotiation
2. Military force
South Carolina, as I be pointed out and apparently you and Cocky can’t wrap your minds around, viewed all laws and agreements it had with the US as null and void. They sought to reach a negotiated settlement to the matter of Federal Lands in the South. The same thing was happening concerning federal lands in the new Confederacy. There could have been some sort of agreement that would have avoided war, including the Confederacy giving the US some sort of recompense for the loss of federal property. The US could have let the Confederates go in peace. But the US chose a path they fully knew would result in war instead.
Posted on 10/27/22 at 11:41 am to monsterballads
quote:
states rights to... own slaves.
What is interesting but no one talks about is that there are a number of former slaves that went on to own slaves. So, since that happened, will "other" statues be torn down?
Posted on 10/27/22 at 11:41 am to Darth_Vader
quote:Wait, wait, wait . . .
Citing laws when the governing body that passed said law had declared that law null and void is you either being (A) willfully ignorant or (b) too emotionally attached to your preconceived worldview to look at the matter from a rational historic standpoint.
quote:
too emotionally attached to your preconceived worldview to look at the matter from a rational historic standpoint
This post was edited on 10/27/22 at 11:43 am
Posted on 10/27/22 at 11:42 am to GetCocky11
quote:
iting laws when the governing body that passed said law had declared that law null and void
quote:
Yeah, that isn't how that works. Saying it doesn't make it true.
By your “logic” (I use that term loosely) the laws passed by the British during colonial rule would still be in effect in the US today.
Posted on 10/27/22 at 11:45 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
the laws passed by the British during colonial rule would still be in effect in the US today.
Do you even Treaty of Paris (1783)?
Posted on 10/27/22 at 11:45 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
By your “logic” (I use that term loosely) the laws passed by the British during colonial rule would still be in effect in the US today.
If their military had the strength to defend said laws, yes.
Posted on 10/27/22 at 11:47 am to GetCocky11
quote:
Do you even Treaty of Paris (1783)?
Do you not understand that’s exactly what the Confederacy was seeking to do when they sent emissaries to Washington to negotiate the transfer of federal properties in the South?
Posted on 10/27/22 at 11:50 am to Darth_Vader
quote:So there is a treaty or other agreement between South Carolina and the US that you meant to reference but have not done so yet.quote:they sent emissaries to Washington to negotiate the transfer of federal properties in the South
Do you even Treaty of Paris (1783)?
I'll wait.
Posted on 10/27/22 at 11:51 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
Do you not understand that’s exactly what the Confederacy was seeking to do when they sent emissaries to Washington to negotiate the transfer of federal properties in the South?
Without doing the dirty work like the colonials had to do in the 1770s and early 1780s to get to that treaty table.
The Confederates were negotiating from a position of illegitimacy.
Posted on 10/27/22 at 11:55 am to Salviati
quote:
So there is a treaty or other agreement between South Carolina and the US that you meant to reference but have not done so yet.
The treaty your “waiting” for was what the Confederate delegation was there to seek. I feel like I’m arguing with a mentally addled 10 year old.
Posted on 10/27/22 at 11:59 am to GetCocky11
quote:
Without doing the dirty work like the colonials had to do in the 1770s and early 1780s to get to that treaty table.
The Confederates were negotiating from a position of illegitimacy.
That would be true if there was even a single law that prevented states from leaving the Union. There were laws against overthrowing the government. That is true. But that’s not what the South was trying to do. They simply wanted to separate from it. And for that, there was no law in 1860 to prevent them from doing so. The Supreme Court did not settle this matter until four years after the end of the war.
Posted on 10/27/22 at 12:03 pm to Darth_Vader
Youtube has taken the video down.
Video unavailable
This video is no longer available because the YouTube account associated with this video has been terminated.
Video unavailable
This video is no longer available because the YouTube account associated with this video has been terminated.
This post was edited on 10/27/22 at 12:04 pm
Posted on 10/27/22 at 12:05 pm to MrLSU
quote:
Youtube has taken the video down.
Of course they did. It flies in the face of the modern narrative. YouTube can’t have someone who actually lived and fought in the Civil War going against that narrative.
Page 7 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News