- 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: The trope Confederates were traitors is bullshite
Posted on 6/28/20 at 4:21 pm to More&Les
Posted on 6/28/20 at 4:21 pm to More&Les
Just noticed something ..in the claim on the oath of office.
The German Historian will not be clouded by the "Winner" writing of history. But more informative ...
If your state has done the Constitutional thing at the time and succeeded ...Your oath to the "United States" is now invalid.
Lee in particular, resigned his commission before taking command of the Confederate Army. His oath didn't mean a thing at the time.
The argument is not functional under those circumstances.
The German Historian will not be clouded by the "Winner" writing of history. But more informative ...
If your state has done the Constitutional thing at the time and succeeded ...Your oath to the "United States" is now invalid.
Lee in particular, resigned his commission before taking command of the Confederate Army. His oath didn't mean a thing at the time.
The argument is not functional under those circumstances.
This post was edited on 6/28/20 at 4:33 pm
1
Posted on 6/28/20 at 4:21 pm to Welwood
quote:
There were no winners in that war.
Um. There were some winners, right?
Posted on 6/28/20 at 4:25 pm to udtiger
quote:
Like the colonists, they attempted redress and relief through the "legitimate" mechanisms and were rebuffed. It was made clear that even though "equal" they were to be subservient.
No, like these TDS infected clowns today, they lost a fricking election.
They violated their oath and took up arms against the United States,and just to show they were true Democrats they proclaimed victimhood and attacked Fort Sumter
Posted on 6/28/20 at 4:39 pm to bluedragon
Losing a war is pretty much the ultimate res judicata on that issue.
Posted on 6/28/20 at 4:39 pm to bluedragon
quote:
bluedragon
Why did you reply to me? I’m not the one who said what you quoted there.
Posted on 6/28/20 at 4:40 pm to Ted2010
Cuz he’s so well educated and steeped in history.
Posted on 6/28/20 at 4:40 pm to More&Les
quote:
Had they won they would still have been Traitors to the United States but the United States as founded, with its constitution would have perished from this earth and Tyrants like Stalin, Hitler would have succeeded
The South fought to gain independence, not to topple the government in Washington. The South had no desire to take over that government in Washington. So tell me how that constitution would have perished from the Earth?
Lincoln and the radicals did more to eradicate the original constitution than the Confederates ever did. All the South was asking for was to be left alone, to govern themselves.
“All that the South has ever desired was that the Union as established by our forefathers should be preserved and that the government as originally organized should be administered in purity and truth.”
Robert E. Lee
Something that even old Abe agreed with at one time:
“Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world”.
Abraham Lincoln – U.S. Congress, 1847
Posted on 6/28/20 at 4:41 pm to More&Les
Fighting to free slaves a noble and romantic notion: however, one maybe a bit too simple to explain an otherwise complex situation. There was more to this conflict than freeing African slaves in the South. In fact, there were five Union states still holding slaves when the war began.
The South felt that is was being treated unfairly by the North in regards to high tariffs imposed.
LINK
The South felt that is was being treated unfairly by the North in regards to high tariffs imposed.
LINK
Posted on 6/28/20 at 4:53 pm to longwayfromLA
quote:
Um. There were some winners, right?
Not according to Gen Z.
Posted on 6/28/20 at 4:56 pm to More&Les
"His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and Independent States; that he treats with them as such, and for himself his Heirs & Successors, relinquishes all claims to the Government, Propriety, and Territorial Rights of the same and every Part thereof."
Treaty of Paris (1783) Article 1st
This is what the USA signed on to, i.e,. the states were "free sovereign and Independent States."
They were free to secede. And secession was not being traitorous.
Debating the cause of secession is one thing. That states had the right to secede is not, They did. They were "free sovereign and Independent States."
Treaty of Paris (1783) Article 1st
This is what the USA signed on to, i.e,. the states were "free sovereign and Independent States."
They were free to secede. And secession was not being traitorous.
Debating the cause of secession is one thing. That states had the right to secede is not, They did. They were "free sovereign and Independent States."
This post was edited on 6/28/20 at 4:59 pm
Posted on 6/28/20 at 5:07 pm to AlwysATgr
Don't hit them with historical facts. They will fire back with the public education facts that they heard when their high school football coach read it out of the textbook.
This post was edited on 6/28/20 at 5:11 pm
Posted on 6/28/20 at 6:02 pm to TS1926
quote:
Fighting to free slaves a noble and romantic notion: however, one maybe a bit too simple to explain an otherwise complex situation. There was more to this conflict than freeing African slaves in the South. In fact, there were five Union states still holding slaves when the war began.
The South felt that is was being treated unfairly by the North in regards to high tariffs imposed.
Same shite Democrats have TDS over now, there was an election, the Democrats lost power and refused to accept the will of the American people, which apparently is just how Democrats respond to losing elections.
At the end of the day, the Civil war happened because Democrats wanted to maintain Slavery.
Abraham Lincoln didn't kick the Democrats out, he didn't force them to form their own country and he didn't attack Fort Sumter.
The Civil War is 100% on the Democrats and they were the protectionist of Slavery, 100%.
Posted on 6/28/20 at 6:14 pm to JudgeHolden
quote:
Cuz he’s so well educated and steeped in history.
Obviously
Posted on 6/28/20 at 6:25 pm to bluedragon
quote:
R.N. Bradbury, former Full Professor Polymaths at Heidelberg University
By the way, Heidelberg University shows no connection to any Bradbury at all.
This post was edited on 6/28/20 at 6:28 pm
Posted on 6/28/20 at 6:35 pm to bluedragon
“You'd have a valid argument, if you took the time to actually study history instead regurgitating what you heard somewhere in a bathroom stall. I believe the term is "spoon fed"
No one teaches this reality ...the con game is in the written history taught in schools. Until you approach one simple question ...your version of treason is based on ignorance.
Go online and ask this very simple question. If Congress passed legislation two days before Lincoln was sworn in, that confirmed the existence and support of slavery for the nation. Ask What in the world was the North fighting for? Slavery is not an issue for the north to go to war over. What is the answer? When you can provide that answer let's debate.
Five slave states remained in the Union? Why? I thought the sold history fallacy was that the war was fought to free the slaves.
Lee was offered the position of commander of the Union armies ....two days later Virginia secedes. What was the north fighting for? On that same day, the Union called for troops and the discussion with Lee was the pending invasion of the south. Lee understands the Constitution more than whatever comic book the slave freedom idea originated from.
The Constitution was an agreement between thirteen colonies ....not an introduction to slavery in surrendering "State's rights" Read the document again and understand it's meaning. There was a justification in seceding.
Years later, Why not immediately?
When Lincoln introduced the idea of the Emancipation Proclamation ....his top generals threatened to leave their positions knowing their troops would not accept losing their lives over blacks ....The north is and always been more racist than the south.
The excuse presented was the proclamation was to convince the southern blacks to rise up against their southern owners.....It took over two years for this to be stated?
Again,, exactly what was the North Fighting for?
The answer is buried in the secession documents ..
Until then declaring it treason as a Monday morning Arm Chair Quarterback ...is worthless.”
Very well written. It will be lost on some unfortunately. But bravo sir. The ones calling some traitors will never take the time to understand your post.
No one teaches this reality ...the con game is in the written history taught in schools. Until you approach one simple question ...your version of treason is based on ignorance.
Go online and ask this very simple question. If Congress passed legislation two days before Lincoln was sworn in, that confirmed the existence and support of slavery for the nation. Ask What in the world was the North fighting for? Slavery is not an issue for the north to go to war over. What is the answer? When you can provide that answer let's debate.
Five slave states remained in the Union? Why? I thought the sold history fallacy was that the war was fought to free the slaves.
Lee was offered the position of commander of the Union armies ....two days later Virginia secedes. What was the north fighting for? On that same day, the Union called for troops and the discussion with Lee was the pending invasion of the south. Lee understands the Constitution more than whatever comic book the slave freedom idea originated from.
The Constitution was an agreement between thirteen colonies ....not an introduction to slavery in surrendering "State's rights" Read the document again and understand it's meaning. There was a justification in seceding.
Years later, Why not immediately?
When Lincoln introduced the idea of the Emancipation Proclamation ....his top generals threatened to leave their positions knowing their troops would not accept losing their lives over blacks ....The north is and always been more racist than the south.
The excuse presented was the proclamation was to convince the southern blacks to rise up against their southern owners.....It took over two years for this to be stated?
Again,, exactly what was the North Fighting for?
The answer is buried in the secession documents ..
Until then declaring it treason as a Monday morning Arm Chair Quarterback ...is worthless.”
Very well written. It will be lost on some unfortunately. But bravo sir. The ones calling some traitors will never take the time to understand your post.
This post was edited on 6/28/20 at 6:36 pm
Posted on 6/28/20 at 6:53 pm to More&Les
quote:
No, like these TDS infected clowns today, they lost a fricking election
1860 election was the straw. This had been coming for decades.
Just like the American Revolution.
Intolerable Acts lit the fuse, but it had been brewing since at least 1763.
Posted on 6/28/20 at 6:55 pm to udtiger
quote:
They were not traitors. They were the epitome of the American spirit.
They also all Knew if they lost they would be hung as traitors.
Posted on 6/28/20 at 7:08 pm to More&Les
quote:They "were" Americans, then seceded to form their own nation. They had no designs on attacking the North but were forced to defend themselves from Northern aggression. Defending yourself is morally the right one has in the world in which we live. Your ignorant opinion 154 years after the war ended does not outweigh the opinion of the US Congress in office at that time nor should it. THOSE people fought the war and THOSE people are the ones who deserve the respect from the rest of us who came much much later for the decisions and judgements THEY made in THEIR time. THAT Congress and THAT government did not consider the Confederate soldiers as traitors. The US Constitution itself PROVES that Virginia was not considered to be a part of the union at that time due to the allowance of the entry into the union of the state of West Virginia. These are the FACTS. Your ignorant opinion is worthless compared to these FACTS. That you seem intent on imposing your stupidity on those who lived that time and the rest of us who have studied that time is even more ignorant.
They were Americans, then they formed an insurgency government and attacked the United States, they were fricking traitors
Posted on 6/28/20 at 7:21 pm to Paul Maul number 37
quote:
They "were" Americans, then seceded to form their own nation. They had no designs on attacking the North but were forced to defend themselves from Northern aggression.
Are you fricking retarded, the Confederates attack the U.S. military installation at Fort Sumter.
Pretending the South was fricking victimized is total bullshite but par for the course for a bunch of fricking Democrats
Page 4 of 6
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News