- 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: The Civil War becomes a revolution against slavery - 157 years ago today
Posted on 9/22/19 at 9:33 am to RollTide1987
Posted on 9/22/19 at 9:33 am to RollTide1987
And 157 years later, we are still being guilt tripped regularly for the actions and decisions of our great great grandparents.
1
Posted on 9/22/19 at 9:33 am to beerJeep
quote:
But at the end of the day it was a political move that had no real implications for the slaves in the south. It helped keep outsiders from assisting the south, but we both know that “freeing the slaves” wasn’t the goal. It was the bonus
Where is he arguing with you? Everyone knows it was a brilliant political move that Lincoln had to fight hard for. And he did it despite an election coming up and riots and desertion in the Union army skyrocketed. It was a bold move that I respect him for
Posted on 9/22/19 at 9:34 am to RollTide1987
quote:
The freeing of slaves became a war aim on January 1, 1863.
Yet the north kept their slaves... so much for “freeing” those slaves huh?
Ohhhh you mean the freeing of SOUTHERN slaves became a war aim. Not the freeing of slaves....
quote:
Only after he was re-elected in November 1864 could he make a decisive move against slavery everywhere, which is why he brought the 13th amendment to debate and eventual vote in January 1865.
But I thought it became a “war to end slavery” 2 years prior? Ohhh see there’s you go again. You meant to say a war on SOUTHERN slavery. Rules for thee but not for me.
This post was edited on 9/22/19 at 9:35 am
Posted on 9/22/19 at 9:35 am to GREENHEAD22
Only southern history teachers with an agenda taught that slavery wasn't a root cause of the civil war. Please read the acts of succession from any random state to see that you and your high school teacher was wrong.
Posted on 9/22/19 at 9:37 am to RollTide1987
If the South would've won, we’d a had it made. I’d probably run for President of the Southern States.
Posted on 9/22/19 at 9:37 am to Napoleon
The Cornerstone Speech has taught me all I need to know about slavery and the war between the states.
Posted on 9/22/19 at 9:40 am to Klark Kent
quote:
the actions and decisions of our great great grandparents.
Speak for yourself. Some of our families were still trying to get away from persecution elsewhere during that time.
Posted on 9/22/19 at 9:42 am to Napoleon
Don't need history to tell me the south are the least homogeneous states.
But you can continue to convince us the north is holier than thou on top of your White castles.
But you can continue to convince us the north is holier than thou on top of your White castles.
Posted on 9/22/19 at 9:46 am to beerJeep
quote:
Yet the north kept their slaves... so much for “freeing” those slaves huh?
Ohhhh you mean the freeing of SOUTHERN slaves became a war aim. Not the freeing of slaves....
I've told you at least twice why Lincoln didn't apply the Emancipation Proclamation to the border states but I will tell you again. Their loyalties were tenuous at best and if he had freed them, it is likely one or more of them secede and add their manpower to the Confederate cause. The most likely state to secede would have been Maryland, an action that would have put Washington D.C. behind enemy lines.
quote:
But I thought it became a “war to end slavery” 2 years prior?
It did. But Lincoln feared the Southern states, once rejoined to the Union, would sue the Lincoln administration and argue the Emancipation Proclamation to be an unconstitutional measure - an argument they most likely would have won.
Lincoln needed insurance and that insurance was the 13th amendment.
Posted on 9/22/19 at 9:52 am to RollTide1987
quote:
I've told you at least twice why Lincoln didn't apply the Emancipation Proclamation to the border states but I will tell you again
I know why. I knew why before you said it was to keep the border states. It was the right decision on Abe’s part. Just as issuing a proclamation that had, quite literally, zero legal power to free slaves in the southern states.
Pure, unadulterated, politicking.
Still makes you hypocritical to say you’re fighting to free slaves yet still allow slaves in your states.
Btw I seriously love your civil war battle post
This post was edited on 9/22/19 at 9:54 am
Posted on 9/22/19 at 9:54 am to beerJeep
quote:
Still makes you hypocritical to say you’re fighting to free slaves yet still allow slaves in your states.
And yet he did just that and succeeded in his number one goal: keeping the border states loyal and Europe out of the conflict.
Say what you want about Abraham Lincoln, but the man was a political genius who was almost always one or two steps ahead of everyone - be that friend or foe.
This post was edited on 9/22/19 at 10:01 am
Posted on 9/22/19 at 9:58 am to coonasswhodat
quote:
The Cornerstone Speech has taught me all I need to know about slavery and the war between the states.
Limiting your intake of knowledge is great way to look like a fool. I don’t think anybody disputes that slavery was the catalyst for the secession, or that for the rich slave-owning “intelligentsia,” it wasn’t THE reason. What is suggested, however, is that for the average actual soldier, and those like lee who understood their cause and freed slave they did have, this was a fight over power and self-governance versus preservation of the union. What sparked the cause for secession? Slavery. But saying that’s it is damningly ignorant.
Posted on 9/22/19 at 10:15 am to GREENHEAD22
quote:
Lincoln didnt give a shite about the slaves.
Yet 7 Slaveholding states decided to secede from the Union even before Lincoln was inaugurated due to his perceived threat to their precious slaves.
Maybe it's was due to Lincoln's open opposition to slavery & it's expansion?
Posted on 9/22/19 at 10:23 am to sugar71
quote:
Yet 7 Slaveholding states decided to secede from the Union even before Lincoln was inaugurated due to his perceived threat to their precious slaves.
There's a reason why Lincoln wasn't even on the ballot in some southern states. The Republican Party was seen as anti-slavery and abolitionist in nature. The last thing the Deep South wanted was to vote for someone who was opposed to slavery and its expansion.
Posted on 9/22/19 at 10:55 am to beerJeep
quote:
Yet the north continued to allow slavery throughout the civil war.
And after the war.
Posted on 9/22/19 at 11:10 am to S
I don't think union could take on royal army in1800s. Would Britain reclaim the usa
Posted on 9/22/19 at 11:46 am to Boo Krewe
quote:
If Britain sided with the confederacy , what would have happened ?
The Royal Navy would have broken the Union naval blockade which would have allowed the South to import arms. Something they desperately needed due to their lack of heavy industrialization
Posted on 9/22/19 at 11:48 am to Boo Krewe
quote:
I don't think union could take on royal army in1800s.
I personally believe the Army of the Potomac and the Army of the Tennessee, in May 1865, could have rivaled any force on the planet. They were battle hardened by four years of bloody and intense warfare, and were among the most well-equipped armies to ever march up to that point in time.
The leadership at the top of the Union army was also among the best in the world at that point in time.
Posted on 9/22/19 at 11:52 am to BamaSaint
quote:
Everyone knows it was a brilliant political move that Lincoln had to fight hard for. And he did it despite an election coming up and riots and desertion in the Union army skyrocketed. It was a bold move that I respect him for
Lincoln is probably the greatest politician the United States has ever produced. The man had a knack for maneuvering himself and the United States into the best possible position.
Posted on 9/22/19 at 2:01 pm to RollTide1987
England France Russia ottomans were all pretty powerful .
Uk had colonies numbers in their troops
Uk had colonies numbers in their troops
This post was edited on 9/22/19 at 2:05 pm
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News