- 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: Was the Civil War Fought Because of Slavery? It Depends on Which Side You View
Posted on 5/8/26 at 3:47 pm to Cuz413
Posted on 5/8/26 at 3:47 pm to Cuz413
quote:
I never said in terms of free black people, that's you trying to interject a narrative like you often do to twist things.
No that's me using a direct question to poke holes in your claims.
Claiming the South was more integrated than the North b/c they had slaves is sophistry.
I'm just glad we clarified how bad that attempt of a point was.
quote:
Slaves attended church with their masters, traveled with them, some lived in the same house as them, black women cared for white babies. Most farmers worked in the fields side by side with their slaves.
Holy
fricking
shite
2
Posted on 5/8/26 at 3:49 pm to Narax
Youre delusional
Next you'll tell me that Gen Sherman was joiking about his war crimes too
Next you'll tell me that Gen Sherman was joiking about his war crimes too
quote:
Sherman's troops left Atlanta, recently taken by Union forces under Sherman, and ended with the capture of the port of Savannah on December 21. Emulating the chevauchée of medieval European warfare, his forces followed a "scorched earth" policy, destroying military targets as well as industry, infrastructure, and civilian property, disrupting the Confederacy's economy and transportation networks.
Posted on 5/8/26 at 3:51 pm to RobbBobb
quote:
1) Slavery was a legal economic system IN THE constitution
Slavery was not directly protected by the Constitution after 1808. Congress could have made it illegal at any point thereafter per the text of the Constitution.
Article 1, Section 9:
quote:
Migration or Importation
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
quote:
2) The 10th amendment OF THE constitution specifically states that anything not listed in said document falls back to the states
Ignoring the context, that doesn't permit secession.
The federal government couldn't force states out, alternatively.
quote:
West Va (by your logic) illegally separated from VA
Not an applicable or relevant discussion point as we're talking about leaving the United States, not an individual state.
Posted on 5/8/26 at 4:00 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Not an applicable or relevant discussion point as we're talking about leaving the United States, not an individual state.
Incorrect again counselor. We are talking about accepting a state into the Union, that was carved out of another state, which was expressly forbidden by the very constitution that you so fervently want to ignore
It was an unconstitutional act. Yet fine for the Union to do it, But not if the South wanted to carve out of their union (that wasnt mentioned in the constitution). The fact that the Supreme court Ok'd WVA, but denied it in Texas v White just cements the South was right about their unequal representation under what they thought they had signed on for under the constitution
Secession was about states rights, not slavery. Slavery was just the economic engine that the north was trying to undermine, so they could control the south. No different than what the blue states are currently trying to do in gerrymandering (R) districts out of their states
Posted on 5/8/26 at 4:15 pm to RobbBobb
quote:
Youre delusional
Firstly it's "You're"
Secondly, you are the one who repeatedly lies to create his own delusional world.
You keep changing topics because you are so willingly ignorant as to think a spyglass doesn't exist.
You sound like a left wing pro Palestine "war crime" obsessed tranny who's wacking off to dead Jews.
Up until 1863 the Union Army was governed by the 1806 Articles of war.
https://andyreiter.com/wp-content/uploads/military-justice/us/Laws%20and%20Decrees/United%20States%20-%201806%20-%20Articles%20of%20War.pdf
Can you find a war crime in there?
After the Lieber Code (General Orders No. 100, April 24, 1863) was issued, there was a different set of rules governing military conduct.
https://archive.org/details/governarmies00unitrich/page/n7/mode/2up
Can you find the war crime in there?
Or are you speaking about previous international laws governing wars?
Oh wait there were none!
So you must mean modern "War Crime laws" like anything Israel does is a War crime.
Oh wait isn't slavery a war crime?
Oh yes it is!
https://www.icc-cpi.int/about/otp/questions-and-answers-the-icc-office-of-the-prosecutors-policy-on-slavery-crimes
quote:
In several recent cases of the ICC including Ntaganda (Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo) and Ongwen (Situation in Uganda), convictions were entered for slavery crimes as war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Great! Every slaveholder is a war criminal by your logic!
Fact is you throw the term around with no meaning other than a pathological attempt to lie.
Posted on 5/8/26 at 4:19 pm to RobbBobb
quote:
We are talking about accepting a state into the Union, that was carved out of another state, which was expressly forbidden by the very constitution that you so fervently want to ignore
The non-illegal state government of VA approved it. What violated the Constitution, exactly?
The Confederate version of VA was illegal and had no legal authority thereafter, which included the ability to stop the legitimate government from approving the formation of West Virginia.
Posted on 5/8/26 at 4:20 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Holy
fricking
shite
I can't imagine anyone would make this claim in person to a crowd of people...
Posted on 5/8/26 at 4:21 pm to Narax
It's the type of Big-brained cleverness and rhetorical debasement you'd expect for people holding that position, though.
Posted on 5/8/26 at 5:18 pm to RobbBobb
quote:Good Lord!
Why was he not arrested?
Same reason William Tecumseh Sherman was never arrested
The ""fine"" detail is that Sherman was never captured by the South.
Right?
Posted on 5/8/26 at 9:42 pm to SlowFlowPro
This is some of the weakest sauce that you have ever served up
1) The actual govt of Va seceded from the Union. They never voted to allow WVa to secede from them as required by the founding docuents
2) A group of rogue actors that existed for all of 2 years proceeded to allow WVa to exit. They were then placed under Fed martial law
3) There was no statewide vote on the matter
4) Their militia was filled by residents of Penn and Ohio
5) They ceased to exist the moment WVa was accepted into the Union, because they were located in WVa territory
6) The insurgent govt also never bothered to form a judicial branch, so there could never be the ability to have rulings issued against their legitimacy
7) The actual VA govt wasnt allowed back into the Union until 1870, more proof that any acts such as this, conducted in their absence, was illegal. And yet it passed the Supremes muster
Even Ole Abe Lincoln knew what they did was wrong, but like I said before, the man shredded the constitution, at will
1) The actual govt of Va seceded from the Union. They never voted to allow WVa to secede from them as required by the founding docuents
2) A group of rogue actors that existed for all of 2 years proceeded to allow WVa to exit. They were then placed under Fed martial law
3) There was no statewide vote on the matter
4) Their militia was filled by residents of Penn and Ohio
5) They ceased to exist the moment WVa was accepted into the Union, because they were located in WVa territory
6) The insurgent govt also never bothered to form a judicial branch, so there could never be the ability to have rulings issued against their legitimacy
7) The actual VA govt wasnt allowed back into the Union until 1870, more proof that any acts such as this, conducted in their absence, was illegal. And yet it passed the Supremes muster
Even Ole Abe Lincoln knew what they did was wrong, but like I said before, the man shredded the constitution, at will
quote:
We can not well deny that it is such, unless we do so upon the outside knowledge that the body was chosen at elections, in which a majority of the qualified voters of Virginia did not participate
Posted on 5/8/26 at 9:50 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
The ""fine"" detail is that Sherman was never captured by the South.
Right?
Good grief
I guess we are just ignoring the Ft Sumter terms of surrender then??
quote:
On April 13, Anderson finally agreed to the surrender terms—if they were the same as had been given before: that men could take all property and possessions with them; that they would be given safe passage to any northern port; that the Union flag could be saluted on lowering; and that he would turn over his personal sword.
Posted on 5/9/26 at 8:48 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
No that's me using a direct question to poke holes in your claims.
That's you trying to alter the statement to suit your own agenda.
quote:
Claiming the South was more integrated than the North b/c they had slaves is sophistry.
Once again, this is you making up a narrative
quote:
I'm just glad we clarified how bad that attempt of a point was.
My point still stands. The activities I listed were integration as opposed to the North where Blacks (free or not) were not allowed in the same places as Whites, sometimes not even allowed in the State.
And then there are records of CSA President Davis taking in a young Black boy Jim Limber and cared for him as one of his own.
Page 22 of 22
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News