- 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: Richmond fell to the U.S. Army 161 years ago today...
Posted on 4/3/26 at 8:19 pm to Fat and Happy
Posted on 4/3/26 at 8:19 pm to Fat and Happy
quote:
It is amazing to me that this continuous lie was told about why the civil war even happened.
Slavery was never the reason. Lincoln didn’t even want to stop it. He even wrote that he didn’t believe it was his right to stop it.
Four Southern states—Mississippi, South Carolina, Georgia, and Texas—issued formal "Declarations of Causes" alongside their ordinances of secession, which explicitly cite the protection of slavery as a primary motivation.
0
Posted on 4/3/26 at 8:26 pm to RollTide1987
I am at a loss as to how some southern's can still believe that slavery wasn't the driver of the CW. I mean you can read in the Articles of Succession.
Posted on 4/3/26 at 8:27 pm to RollTide1987
My wife and I took wedding pictures right there in that photo 150+ years later.
Posted on 4/3/26 at 8:31 pm to Fat and Happy
quote:
It is amazing to me that this continuous lie was told about why the civil war even happened.
The North didn’t fight the civil war to end slavery; the South did secede to perpetuate slavery.
Posted on 4/3/26 at 8:59 pm to 6R12
quote:
I think slavery went back just a lil further than 161 years ago
Indeed! Precisely.
Posted on 4/3/26 at 9:09 pm to Turnblad85
quote:
If I had the gift of time travel I'd travel back to the 1860's and fight with my southern brothers at Vicksburg. To fight and possibly die with men of the South would be the greatest honor I can imagine.
Might as well go back a little further and present the case that we should pick our own cotton. We would have been a lot better off.
Posted on 4/3/26 at 9:14 pm to McLemore
quote:
your takeaway is a reductionistic theodicy based on illogical presuppositions?
My brain now needs a heating pad. I pulled my cerebellum reading that. Kidding.
Joshing aside, no Atheist here, moreso a religion skeptic, as paradoxical as that may be. And out of respect for today’s meaning and Easter, will let this lie. But would at some point like to get your thoughts on my big questions and why my conclusions, a future post for productive learnings.
TIL then, Happy Easter.
Posted on 4/3/26 at 9:23 pm to ATrillionaire
quote:His Facebook buddies used a different meme.
That number is significant enough. Not sure why a blatant exaggeration was needed.
Posted on 4/5/26 at 1:39 pm to Everyday Is Saturday
quote:
Magic 8 Ball answer
No it's not. You already admitted a religion skeptic, but here you go. In Exodus, where you mention the 10 Commandments, slavery also meant indentured servitude but should be released in year 7 with provisions. But to your point about:
quote:
while omitting slavery, enslaving human families and selling them off / splitting spouses, parents and children into life of forced labor without human rights.
Exodus had protection laws. Kidnaping into slavery was punishable by death. You could be punished for abuse of slaves. The new testament says to treat them with dignity or as a brother. The problem you may have is that Christians, being human, distort passages and make errors in judgement, slander scripture for personal gains which is typical of all humans in any religion or existence.
Remember, God also allowed his chosen people to be enslaved. And within it, the bigger picture were the lessons of justice, judgement, and redemption.
Posted on 4/5/26 at 2:26 pm to Cdawg
quote:
Exodus had protection laws.
Did they abolish slavery? If not, why not?
Transparency of thought (not wish to be ‘antagonist’, especially on this Holy day):
Ok with enslaving God’s creation but not ok with some means to that end. Enter protection laws. Enslave God’s creation is ok. Just do it the right way?
Value is in lessons for others, I suppose is your point (if I am hearing your point well).
Full transparency on my view of many religions, and this discussion is a great example:
Time & place context > universal moral basis in such written text. Feels heavy with “man” context and light of universal context, as written. Slavery was a societal norm. Society’s are man-made. Pens are man-held. What is taken as Biblical law is seemingly God but is it really?
Women as chattel is another.
To say, believer in God, creator of people, life and Earth. Religion, however, as they are written and taught, are too laced/heavy with “man” context for my suspiciousness. Have taken decision to dedicate my life to God, not religion. Paradoxical for many as that may seem.
I get much more inspiration from believers of their religion than the religions themselves. Amazing people. Happy Easter!
This post was edited on 4/5/26 at 7:08 pm
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News