- 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
0
Posted on 10/10/17 at 6:52 am to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
The Confederacy won't.
But not before making sure this guy didn't either.....
Posted on 10/10/17 at 7:17 am to kingbob
quote:
What kneelers and confederate flag waivers have in common
They suck
Posted on 10/10/17 at 7:17 am to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
Why would I care about your traitorous ancestors
The fact that you play the 'traitor' card shows you are far from an unbiased observer.
Choose a new word - 'traitor' means to work towards the destruction of the state from within, while masquerading as a normal citizen.
The Confederate States separated from the United States by officials seceding from the Union. This was always a presumed right that existed right up until that right was taken away by force of arms. The Union went to war to conquer the new nation and force them back into the Union.
Traitors are shot when discovered and captured. The Union made peace with the conquered nation.
It is only in the fevered brains of modern leftists that the word 'traitor' has been applied to the Civil War = or as it was called in my youth - 'the War Between the States."
The men fighting for the Confederacy were as honorable as any fighting for the Union. Anyone calling them 'traitors' is a despicable smear merchant.
Attack the underlying cause all you want - I will join you in any denouncement of slavery. It was a universal evil that happened to come to a head in the 1860s. Slavery was defeated. Honorable men on both sides of the conflict gave their lives to settle the issue to everyone's satisfaction.
The Confederates seceded because their economy depended on slave labor and the that was going to be undermined by way the nation was progressing. The Union did not start the war to eliminate slavery - they invaded to bring the state back into the union. If they had been successful in their first attempts, slavery would still have been the law of the land.
The 'emancipation' was an afterthought used as a tactic later in the war.
So rail all you want about the evils of slavery and you will find no opposition - we will all join you.
But meet me down at Sonic and call my great-grandfather a 'traitor,' and we just might have a problem to be solved in a 21st century reenactment.
Posted on 10/10/17 at 7:37 am to ChineseBandit58
quote:
The fact that you play the 'traitor' card shows you are far from an unbiased observer.
I am biased in favor of my country. Sorry I'm not sorry about that.
quote:
Choose a new word - 'traitor' means to work towards the destruction of the state from within, while masquerading as a normal citizen.
trai·tor
'trad?r
noun
a person who betrays a friend, country, principle, etc.
quote:
The Confederate States separated from the United States by officials seceding from the Union. This was always a presumed right that existed right up until that right was taken away by force of arms. The Union went to war to conquer the new nation and force them back into the Union.
"Presumed right."
quote:
Traitors are shot when discovered and captured. The Union made peace with the conquered nation.
Lincoln's greatest misstep.
quote:
It is only in the fevered brains of modern leftists that the word 'traitor' has been applied to the Civil War = or as it was called in my youth - 'the War Between the States."
Opposition to that description is largely limited to the South. That's not a coincidence.
quote:
The men fighting for the Confederacy were as honorable as any fighting for the Union. Anyone calling them 'traitors' is a despicable smear merchant.
Scumbags pissed because they couldn't own other people anymore. "Honorable."
quote:
Attack the underlying cause all you want - I will join you in any denouncement of slavery. It was a universal evil that happened to come to a head in the 1860s. Slavery was defeated. Honorable men on both sides of the conflict gave their lives to settle the issue to everyone's satisfaction.
Incorrect. One side fought to preserve it. That they happened to lose is irrelevant.
quote:
The Confederates seceded because their economy depended on slave labor and the that was going to be undermined by way the nation was progressing. The Union did not start the war to eliminate slavery - they invaded to bring the state back into the union. If they had been successful in their first attempts, slavery would still have been the law of the land.
Oh. My mistake. It was for the good of progressing the nation.
quote:
The 'emancipation' was an afterthought used as a tactic later in the war.
So what.
quote:
But meet me down at Sonic and call my great-grandfather a 'traitor,' and we just might have a problem to be solved in a 21st century reenactment.
You'd lose.
Again.
Posted on 10/10/17 at 7:37 am to Sentrius
Melt.
Posted on 10/10/17 at 7:54 am to ChineseBandit58
quote:
The Confederate States separated from the United States by officials seceding from the Union. This was always a presumed right that existed right up until that right was taken away by force of arms. The Union went to war to conquer the new nation and force them back into the Union.
You are significantly overstating the case for an official right to secession.
Posted on 10/10/17 at 8:07 am to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
quote:
But meet me down at Sonic and call my great-grandfather a 'traitor,' and we just might have a problem to be solved in a 21st century reenactment.
=========
You'd lose.
Quite possibly - but you wouldn't want to do it again.
And I am officially done with you. = No great loss to either of us.
I always thought you were a blowhard, but I am always interested in well articulated opinions, even those I disagree with.
I am a little disappointed that your best efforts in your response were reduced to the laughing emoji.
Got no time for you now.
Posted on 10/10/17 at 8:11 am to Sentrius
quote:
But not before making sure this guy didn't either......
Interestingly enough, the plans for reconstruction that Lincoln had outlined and that ultimately only he would have had the clout to get radical Republicans to agree to called for a much more lenient and conciliatory approach to reintegrating the rebelling states.
It would seem that Mr. Booth was as short-sighted and foolish as many of his ideological descendants.
This post was edited on 10/10/17 at 8:14 am
Posted on 10/10/17 at 8:11 am to CorporateTiger
quote:
You are significantly overstating the case for an official right to secession.
The concept of secession had never before thought to be unavailable. Several states in the north had contemplated seceding at several points prior - some quite early on in the nation's history. None ever went thru with the act, but not because they didn't think they had the 'right' to do it - mostly economic reasons where their grievances came in second to the economics.
I think the 'official right to secession' is pretty well stated in the Declaration of Independence.
Posted on 10/10/17 at 8:14 am to ChineseBandit58
And just like every other secession movement, the British contested the frick out of the DoI. Further DoI has no legal authority amongst the states. It may lay out the moral case for secession, but even to this day ultimately the right to secede usually comes down to force of arms.
Posted on 10/10/17 at 8:15 am to ChineseBandit58
quote:
Quite possibly - but you wouldn't want to do it again.
I wouldn't need to do it again. Same as those clamoring for ACWII.
quote:
I am a little disappointed that your best efforts in your response were reduced to the laughing emoji.
I'm certainly not shocked that this is all you took from anything in my post. You're not unique. Filter everything through your conclusions, then apply emotion, rather than look at anything with objectivity.
quote:
No great loss to either of us.
Agreed. I can't say I've ever found anything you've posted to be particularly useful or interesting.
See ya around.
Posted on 10/10/17 at 8:16 am to Navytiger74
quote:
Interestingly enough, the plans for reconstruction that Lincoln had outlined and that ultimately only he would have had the clout to get radical Republicans to agree to called for a much more lenient and conciliatory approach to reintegrating the rebelling states.
True - the hope for better relations died with Lincoln that day.
The lasting animosity between the north and the south was far more because of Reconstruction than it was because of the war itself.
Posted on 10/10/17 at 8:18 am to CorporateTiger
Posted on 10/10/17 at 8:35 am to CorporateTiger
quote:
but even to this day ultimately the right to secede usually comes down to force of arms.
Well of course = force of arms is the ultimate decider in all disagreements between nations.
But there is nothing in the constitution that requires the executive to go to war to bring back a seceding state. Going to war is a political decision.
And to the point made earlier - and laughed at - If the Union forces had not screwed up so badly in the first year of the war, the Confederacy would have been defeated and brought back into the union ------ and slavery would have still be legal in the south. Slavery would have been left to die out by the advance of mechanization.
So the underlying point is not that the USA went to war to abolish slavery - they went to war to reunite the union. Emancipation was a tactic - used later in the war to keep other nations from siding with the CSA.
I just have to shake my head at the modern day SJWs who toss around terms like "traitor" and "dishonorable scum" to speak about honorable men on both sides of the war in that era.
These have to be miserable people who can only quiet their demons by slandering people from 150 years ago. Those men - on both sides - had more honor than they can even dream of.
Posted on 10/10/17 at 8:41 am to ChineseBandit58
quote:
And to the point made earlier - and laughed at - If the Union forces had not screwed up so badly in the first year of the war, the Confederacy would have been defeated and brought back into the union ------ and slavery would have still be legal in the south. Slavery would have been left to die out by the advance of mechanization.
So the underlying point is not that the USA went to war to abolish slavery - they went to war to reunite the union. Emancipation was a tactic - used later in the war to keep other nations from siding with the CSA.
It was laughed at for good reason. It's a stupid and completely meaningless point. The Confederacy started it because they wanted to own other people. Period. Pretending otherwise is dishonest or ignorant, and I don't have a preference for which is true.
quote:
I just have to shake my head at the modern day SJWs who toss around terms like "traitor" and "dishonorable scum" to speak about honorable men on both sides of the war in that era.
Incorrect.
I only used those terms to describe one side.
quote:
slandering
Slander requires false statements. Your dislike of my posts does not make them false.
Posted on 10/10/17 at 8:43 am to DisplacedBuckeye
Posted on 10/10/17 at 8:44 am to ChineseBandit58
quote:
But there is nothing in the constitution that requires the executive to go to war to bring back a seceding state. Going to war is a political decision.
Sure. There's also nothing that says he can't.
quote:
So the underlying point is not that the USA went to war to abolish slavery - they went to war to reunite the union.
I would absolutely agree with that. Lincoln saw this as a "line in the sand" moment more than a war about slavery.
In the end though, you rebel against your country.... well you might get called a rebel and/or a traitor.
Posted on 10/10/17 at 8:51 am to CorporateTiger
quote:
In the end though, you rebel against your country.... well you might get called a rebel and/or a traitor.
Southerners accept the term "Rebel" without hesitation to describe the CSA. (Rumor is that one NCAA school even used to have that as their mascot.)
I'll go with the tenor of the times. Nobody in 1860s called them 'traitors.'
Posted on 10/10/17 at 8:53 am to ChineseBandit58
I think you are drawing a very faint distinction without a purpose here.
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News