- 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: Confederates surrendered the city of Vicksburg to Ulysses S. Grant 159 years ago today
Posted on 7/5/22 at 8:04 am to GetCocky11
Posted on 7/5/22 at 8:04 am to GetCocky11
quote:
South shouldn’t have started a war
Some people did not pay attention in history class. Let's also not forget that SC was also the first state to secede.
0
Posted on 7/5/22 at 8:46 am to GetCocky11
quote:
South shouldn’t have started a war those days were great in that they ensured the preservation of the Union
The South Seceded due to wanting to preserve the Union to it's original founding fathers purpose. The North wanted more federal power and to take that balance away from the states. The South wanted the States to keep their power...
Now. Look at today's world and see how fricked up our country is and how far away from our founding fathers. Our federal government overreach everything. Which is exactly what the south said would happen once you started giving the feds more power.
Make no mistake. While losing the war, the south was very much correct in fighting it.
This post was edited on 7/5/22 at 8:47 am
Posted on 7/5/22 at 1:36 pm to magildachunks
quote:
Why didn't they run out and meet the enemy outside the city like "Real Men"?
Instead, they hid in caves with the women and children, hiding among the innocents.
Actually, they did try to stop the Union advance at Port Gibson, Grand Gulf, and Black River before withdrawing to the Vicksburg fortifications. Given what he had to work with, Pemberton did about all he could do.
Posted on 7/5/22 at 2:14 pm to sportsaddit68
That's way too simplistic. The truth is that the Union was growing and it was fed by European immigrants from Ireland and Germany, mainly. These new arrivals did not have the ability to afford large plots of land and slaves. Non slave states were starting to outnumber slave states and by the mid 1850s the north had a preponderance of power that the Southern States kept trying to test. The fighting in Kansas was indicative, but Southern politicians were actually more concerned about Minnesota coming into the union followed by Oregon. Their voting influence was now diluted and diminished in the Senate alone.
Southern Senators could not bully the institution and the sentiment of these new states and their representatives was distinctly anti slavery as it applies to their states.
You talk about States Rights and the right to do with your " property" as you pleased, but these new states had rights and sentiment.....they saw it very differently.
Southern Senators could not bully the institution and the sentiment of these new states and their representatives was distinctly anti slavery as it applies to their states.
You talk about States Rights and the right to do with your " property" as you pleased, but these new states had rights and sentiment.....they saw it very differently.
Posted on 7/5/22 at 2:19 pm to justaniceguy
quote:
Switzerland is going pretty well and they are a confederacy
Only in name. They are a federal state. They haven't been a confederation in practice since 1848 at the minimum.
Posted on 7/5/22 at 2:27 pm to ForeverEllisHugh
The CSA would have become an economic backwater akin to Haiti if not for the Civil War. Millions of slaves breeding. Go another 20 years and you have a bloodbath.
Plus the South does not have access to the mineral deposits out west and certainly did not have the super highway of the Great Lakes and unified rail to leverage the resources.
Plus the South does not have access to the mineral deposits out west and certainly did not have the super highway of the Great Lakes and unified rail to leverage the resources.
This post was edited on 7/5/22 at 2:29 pm
Posted on 7/5/22 at 3:13 pm to SpotCheckBilly
quote:
Not sure why some feel the need to fight the war all over again.
Because the "Winners" get to relive their obsession with a 160 year old phony victory lap and replay a neverending loop of America's most glaring historical revisionist "History".
It's just as easy to post all of the revisionist lies and painful omissions of the Civil War -- including un-Constitutional Feral overreach & int'l Banker string-pullers that started the war; its actual facilitators; the forced Union conscription of the poor, Irish and foreigners as sacrificial war fodder; the un-necessary sado-psychopathic destruction of Southern infrastructure and heritage; and pre-ordained post-CW profiteers & carpet baggers that swooped in like vultures to steal the South's wealth and break its spirit.
The real nuts & bolts of the Civil War was filthy, dishonorable, disgraceful and un-glorious -- with few notable exceptions.
As some have already noted, the calendar sez it's 160 later. Let's leave the soul and bones and blood of the 600,000 courageous young dead in peace and not dig them up repeatedly as a rite of Stolen Honor.
Page 6 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News