- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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 157 years ago, William T. Sherman presented Savannah, GA to Lincoln...
Posted on 12/23/21 at 8:32 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
Posted on 12/23/21 at 8:32 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
They literally came from Asia. Lol.
Indigenous. Lol.
Indigenous. Lol.
0
Posted on 12/23/21 at 8:34 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
Lincoln was elected on November 6, 1860. South Carolina passed an Ordinance of Secession on December 20, 1860.
Lincoln was inaugurated on March 4, 1861. Fort Sumter was fired on on April 12, 1861.
If I'm Lincoln, I might be starting to take this personally.
If you’re making a point, do you mind making it explicit?
quote:
The indigenous people of this continent would like a word with you. I expect the Mexicans would too.
Are you saying that they would disagree, are you saying that you would disagree, are you assuming that I would disagree?
If you have issues with my points I wish you would be more explicit about them.
Posted on 12/23/21 at 8:38 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
Incorrect, because the Federals managed to take it back in 1865. The Japanese did something similar when they took the Philippines, Guam, and Wake Island from us in the early days of our war with them in 1941-42. We took them all back. There's this whole war thing that you are ignoring. When the Confederacy opened fire on Fort Sumter on the morning of April 12, 1861, they effectively started a war. In order for them to maintain their independence they would have to win that war. They failed to do so.
Fair enough on that point, but you’re maintaining that might is right then. So we are clear, if the South had won, you would be arguing from my side, and if the US were ever conquered you would say the conquerer was right?
Posted on 12/23/21 at 8:40 pm to Sip_Tyga
Under no scenario is it beneficial for the South to secede. There is no benefit for a country of slavers by 1860. Great Britain was apprehensive and during the war the PM shut down any petitions by the South for recognition. France had no desire as they were bogged down in Mexico. Spain is a basket as dying empire. You could say cotton was king but Britain had started to cultivate cotton in large amounts in India. There were few foreign nations that were particularly keen in doing business with a country that is built primarily on slavery.
Plus the North needs the Mississippi River to move material from the interior. The Erie Canal is not big enough off the Great Lakes. The North is not about to allow itself to be hamstrung by a new nation that controls the mouth of the largest River with access to the sea. It's not desirable to the North and really it's not desirable for the South either.
Plus the North needs the Mississippi River to move material from the interior. The Erie Canal is not big enough off the Great Lakes. The North is not about to allow itself to be hamstrung by a new nation that controls the mouth of the largest River with access to the sea. It's not desirable to the North and really it's not desirable for the South either.
Posted on 12/23/21 at 8:48 pm to Sip_Tyga
quote:
So we are clear, if the South had won, you would be arguing from my side, and if the US were ever conquered you would say the conquerer was right?
If the South had won I more than likely am a citizen of the Confederacy right now. So, yeah.
Posted on 12/23/21 at 9:00 pm to KiwiHead
In the first paragraph you seem to be arguing against my praxeological analysis of the relationship between the North and South, and then in your second paragraph you seem to vindicate it. It sounds like the North wanted to have its cake and eat it too, as you said.
Posted on 12/23/21 at 9:04 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
If the South had won I more than likely am a citizen of the Confederacy right now. So, yeah.
Ok, well then I guess I rest my case. Doesn’t that have the odd implication that if you were alive at the outbreak of the civil war, you would’ve stayed neutral because you would’ve had to wait for a victor to see who was right about it? This seems like sophistry. You may have the last word on this exchange though.
Posted on 12/23/21 at 9:16 pm to Sip_Tyga
quote:
Doesn’t that have the odd implication that if you were alive at the outbreak of the civil war, you would’ve stayed neutral because you would’ve had to wait for a victor to see who was right about it?
How is that the implication? I freely admit that had I been alive and of fighting age in 1861, I likely would have fought on the side of the Confederacy just by the nature of where I was born. My values, my mindset, and my worldview would have been totally different in the mid-19th century compared to what it is in the early-21st century. Who we are and what we believe in is dependent in large part to how we were raised. Men were raised to believe different things in that era than they are in the present day.
Posted on 12/23/21 at 9:38 pm to RollTide1987
You said on the page before that the Civil War told us the South had no right to secede. I took that to be the equivalent of “slavery in the 1850s showed us blacks had no right to be free”. I would say yes they had the right to be free, they were just physically dominated. I base my being against slavery on that, doesn’t matter that they were physically prevented from it at that time. Same with the Confederacy. I maintain they had a right to secede even if they were physically denied it.
Posted on 12/23/21 at 9:45 pm to Sip_Tyga
quote:
You said on the page before that the Civil War told us the South had no right to secede.
Yes. Because they lost. I'm always speaking in the present tense. When they did it in 1860-61, no one was really sure if they had the right to secede or not. The South thought it did. The North said it didn't. Clearly history proved the North correct but no one knew that at the time.
This post was edited on 12/23/21 at 9:46 pm
Posted on 12/23/21 at 10:18 pm to RollTide1987
No one in this exchange has disputed whether the North won the war or not. Are you under the impression that Southern defenders are arguing that the South won when they say the South had a right to secede? Am I crazy or are you being obtuse? No one responded to Albert Bledsoe with “you’re wrong because the North won”. I guess we have been talking past one another.
Posted on 12/23/21 at 11:37 pm to RollTide1987
quote:No it didn't.
Yes. Because they lost. I'm always speaking in the present tense. When they did it in 1860-61, no one was really sure if they had the right to secede or not. The South thought it did. The North said it didn't. Clearly history proved the North correct but no one knew that at the time.
Explain why West Virginia is a state?
What's the difference?
Posted on 12/24/21 at 7:52 am to UKWildcats
quote:
Explain why West Virginia is a state?
They seceded from Virginia because they wanted to remain loyal to the Union. That's the difference and I don't see how that's such a hard concept to grasp. Not only that, but winners of conflicts get to dictate the terms of the defeat and clearly the Union - as the victors - dictated to the state of Virginia that West Virginia would forever be its own and separate entity. Which ties into the part of my post you highlighted.
This post was edited on 12/24/21 at 7:57 am
Page 15 of 15
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News