- 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 12/22/21 at 9:46 am to SCLibertarian
Posted on 12/22/21 at 9:46 am to SCLibertarian
No no no. Didn’t you know that the north is the least racist place in America, and probably the world?
Posted on 12/22/21 at 9:47 am to madmaxvol
quote:
I guess the winners get to keep their statues.
Oh really...

Posted on 12/22/21 at 9:47 am to SCLibertarian
You can argue about their motivations until you’re blue in the face, but the fact of the matter is the North made the war about ending slavery while the South fought until the bitter end to uphold that institution. You have no moral ground to stand on in defense of the Southern cause.
Posted on 12/22/21 at 9:48 am to SCLibertarian
I think the grating part is the obsession with claiming absolute moral righteousness. “Woe to the vanquished” has always been the way of the world and always will be. It’s a tough lesson to accept, tougher still if you lost, but it’s no less true.
But in the more distant past, the conquerors let well enough alone once they did their will. Their superior might did all the talking. They didn’t spend 160 years after the fact self-righteously lecturing the vanquished, they didn’t deprive the vanquished of the dignity of having legitimate interests at stake, they didn’t reduce a valiant struggle between nations into a morality play fit for Saturday morning cartoons.
But in the more distant past, the conquerors let well enough alone once they did their will. Their superior might did all the talking. They didn’t spend 160 years after the fact self-righteously lecturing the vanquished, they didn’t deprive the vanquished of the dignity of having legitimate interests at stake, they didn’t reduce a valiant struggle between nations into a morality play fit for Saturday morning cartoons.
Posted on 12/22/21 at 9:51 am to RollTide1987
The North made the war about destroying the South. You can dress it up with whatever noble causes you want—and ending slavery is genuinely a noble cause—but don’t obfuscate the aims of the conquerors.
Posted on 12/22/21 at 9:52 am to OKBoomerSooner
quote:
They didn’t spend 160 years after the fact self-righteously lecturing the vanquished, they didn’t deprive the vanquished of the dignity of having legitimate interests at stake, they didn’t reduce a valiant struggle between nations into a morality play fit for Saturday morning cartoons.

Posted on 12/22/21 at 9:53 am to OKBoomerSooner
quote:
But in the more distant past, the conquerors let well enough alone once they did their will. Their superior might did all the talking. They didn’t spend 160 years after the fact self-righteously lecturing the vanquished, they didn’t deprive the vanquished of the dignity of having legitimate interests at stake, they didn’t reduce a valiant struggle between nations into a morality play fit for Saturday morning cartoons.
Are you freaking kidding me?!
For the first 100 years or so after the war, scholarship of the conflict was heavily slanted in favor of the South. I’d argue that the American Civil War was the first conflict in history where the losers wrote the history and lectured the conquerors on the righteousness of the vanquished’s cause.
Posted on 12/22/21 at 9:53 am to OKBoomerSooner
quote:
I think the grating part is the obsession with claiming absolute moral righteousness.
See the post above yours to prove you 100% correct.
Posted on 12/22/21 at 9:55 am to RollTide1987
The goal for the North was to preserve the union at all costs. If it was a bout slavery then why couldn't the North free them before the war?
Posted on 12/22/21 at 9:56 am to SCLibertarian
quote:
One can simultaneously recognize the evils of slavery and also realize that the Union victory was the primary factor in the death of the American republic and the reason why our current federal government is a centralized leviathan which seeks to control and regulate every facet of our lives.
All of this. Civil war destroyed states rights and the right to peacefully secede the union if the union no longer furthered the interests of the individual state
Posted on 12/22/21 at 9:56 am to RollTide1987
quote:
North made the war about ending slavery
*once they were losing ground to the south and public opinion in the north.
Fixed your statement for you. Lincoln pulled the defacto “let’s find those WMDs” card once people in the north started thinking about letting the Confederacy go. The Civil War was not about slavery until it needed to be.
Posted on 12/22/21 at 9:59 am to JoeXiden
quote:
The Civil War was not about slavery until it needed to be.
Posted on 12/22/21 at 10:03 am to FredBear
quote:
it takes a bit more critical thinking skills to understand that the civil war also put us on the path of federal government overreach on states rights.
But all it takes is an unbiased understanding of History to realize that your statement is incorrect.
What put us on the path to a stronger federal government is our Founding Fathers' rejection of the original Articles of Confederation which were seen as creating a central government that was too weak.
The whole States' Rights claim is a fabrication of the supporters of the Lost Cause of the late 19th century. All you have to do is read the original Articles of Confederation, the US Constitution, the Fugitive Slave Acts (1793, 1850), the Missouri Compromise (1820), the Kansas-Nebraska Act (1854), and the Constitution of the Confederate States - specifically Article IV, Sec. 3, Part 3.:
quote:
The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress and by the Territorial government...
...to see that the "States' Rights" claim is a fraud.
Under the US Constitution, each State has the power to determine for itself whether slavery would be allowed or prohibited, but under the the Confederate Constitution the States had no such power. How in the world is this any kind of expansion of "States' Rights"?
And while we're on the subject, can anyone point out to me in the US Constitution anywhere that acknowledges ANY government entity as having any "rights" at all - much less "States' Rights"? In my reading, all I can find is that "Rights" are reserved for the People, and governments merely have (limited) "Powers".
Posted on 12/22/21 at 10:09 am to OKBoomerSooner
quote:
The North made the war about destroying the South.
That's typically what happens when a war drags out longer than expected. Sooner or later the gloves are going to come off. Those gloves came off after Shiloh because that is when Grant and Sherman realized the only way to defeat the South was to destroy the South.
Posted on 12/22/21 at 10:14 am to OKBoomerSooner
quote:
The North made the war about destroying the South.
They should have just complied.
Posted on 12/22/21 at 10:22 am to OKBoomerSooner
quote:quote:
don't frick with the US Army or bad shite will come down on your head
Retarded psychopathic nonsense like this
So, are you saying that fricking with the US Army won't bring bad shite down on your head? I would wholeheartedly disagree. Time and time again it has shown to be the case that, win or lose, bad shite happens to those who frick with the US Army.
quote:
American elites are sadistic psychopaths who have no compunction about inflicting unspeakable evil on innocent people if it profits them.
While I agree with this (fixed) statement, it still doesn't discount the fact that bad shite happens to people who frick with the US Army.
Posted on 12/22/21 at 10:25 am to SCLibertarian
quote:
This cannot be upvoted enough. Our desire to remake the world in our own image through war, death and destruction can be directly traced to the Puritan Yankee desire to have everyone think, act and behave just like them.
I, Too, am a McClanahan enjoyer :)
Posted on 12/22/21 at 10:25 am to Oilfieldbiology
quote:
You can abhor slavery (which was abolished by every other country a mere 25 years after the end of the war)
Every other country besides England who (save for India) abolished slavery in its territories in 1833
Posted on 12/22/21 at 10:29 am to OKBoomerSooner
quote:
But in the more distant past, the conquerors let well enough alone once they did their will.
lolwut. In the past, every single Confederate leader would have been publicly executed to cheering throngs of people. The US government was eminently forgiving of the treasonous South even after such a bitter war. So sorry if the worst the South has had to deal with is occasionally being reminded that the confederate leaders were wrong and lost. That doesn’t seem to bother any southerner who doesn’t have some romanticized view of the war or the confederacy.
Posted on 12/22/21 at 10:36 am to JoeXiden
quote:
The Civil War was not about slavery until it needed to be.
And that's how politics works, my friend. If you don't understand that then I've got nothing else for you. The fact of the matter is, the South overreacted to Lincoln's election and seceded because they feared the institution of slavery would be quickly abolished and that they would fall into eternal economic ruin. While slavery had definitely entered its final act with the election of Lincoln, the South could have been afforded enough time to adapt and change with the times had they taken Lincoln at his word. They did not. They instead chose to ignite a war that engulfed an entire continent, killed hundreds of thousands of Americans, and absolutely obliterated the South and ended slavery far sooner than it would have ended had they just kept their cool after the 1860 election.
Their petulant and irrational actions set back the South by more than a century. We are only just now starting to recover from 1865 in an economic sense.
Popular
Back to top


0









