- 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: 164 years ago today: "No terms but unconditional and immediate surrender can be accepted."
Posted on 2/16/26 at 1:57 pm to theunknownknight
Posted on 2/16/26 at 1:57 pm to theunknownknight
quote:
Yea that’s false
The Union Soldiers were released on 04/14/1861
The North invaded Virginia on 05/24/1861
The number of attacks on forts in those 6 weeks: zero
And before Sumter?
quote:
Systematic Seizure (Dec 1860–Feb 1861): Following South Carolina's secession (Dec 20, 1860), state forces immediately took over most local federal installations. Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas quickly followed, seizing nearly all forts and arsenals within their borders.
0
Posted on 2/16/26 at 1:57 pm to theunknownknight
quote:Your dates are specious. Most of the Confederate seizures occurred before Confederate forces fired on federal Fort Sumter.quote:Yea that’s false
The South attacked no less than 15 Union forts, armories, and Mints before the North "invasion".
The Union Soldiers were released on 04/14/1861
The North invaded Virginia on 05/24/1861
The number of attacks on forts in those 6 weeks: zero
Confederate forces took control of forts, custom houses, post offices, mints, and ships, including but not limited to:
Fort Pulaski and the U.S. Arsenal in Georgia,
Fort Morgan in Alabama,
the U.S. Mint and Forts Jackson and St. Philip in Louisiana, and
Forts Caswell and Macon in North Carolina.
Before the attack on Fort Sumter, Confederate forces had seized most federal property, with the main exceptions being Fort Sumter in South Carolina, and Forts Pickens, Taylor, and Jefferson in Florida.
Posted on 2/16/26 at 1:58 pm to RollTide1987
I just don’t understand why people feel the need to choose and debate for a side in something that none of us had anything to do with. It was a terrible time for the country and hopefully this country never goes through that again.
Posted on 2/16/26 at 2:03 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
Lincoln believed it was.
Exactly. And, at that time, it wasn’t no matter how they spun it after the fact
You just further proved my point. Lincoln started the war based on his feelings. He was butthurt
Posted on 2/16/26 at 2:05 pm to Salviati
quote:
Your dates are specious. Most of the Confederate seizures occurred before Confederate forces fired on federal Fort Sumter.
Confederate forces took control of forts, custom houses, post offices, mints, and ships, including but not limited to:
Fort Pulaski and the U.S. Arsenal in Georgia,
Fort Morgan in Alabama,
the U.S. Mint and Forts Jackson and St. Philip in Louisiana, and
Forts Caswell and Macon in North Carolina.
Before the attack on Fort Sumter, Confederate forces had seized most federal property, with the main exceptions being Fort Sumter in South Carolina, and Forts Pickens, Taylor, and Jefferson in Florida.
And how does that refute my point. How many attacks were there in that 6 week period? Zero
Yet North invaded because FEDERAL trumps STATE
welcome to my point
Posted on 2/16/26 at 2:05 pm to theunknownknight
quote:Your logic is absurd.
Like I said - J6 “insurrection” logic
Take your logic to the absurd conclusion: if those men would have died on a train going home, their deaths would be attributed to Ft Sumpter because “MUH THEY WOULDNT HAVE BEEN ON THAT TRAIN OF NOT FOR FT SUMPTER!!”
They didn’t die in battle. Period. They died during a peaceful ceremony where they were being shown dignity and respect. The southerners were literally SALUTING the soldiers.
Confederate forces shelled them for 34 hours. Confederate forces took federal property by shelling it for 34 hours.
And you attempt to make an argument that they could have died on a train home. After being shelled for 34 hours.
The accident was caused by the confrontation and taking of Fort Sumter. The accident would NOT have happened if the insurgents had not attempted to wrongfully take the fort. There were not on a train miles away. They were in the process of forcing them out of the fort when the two men died. That's felony murder.
Do you think it would be okay for Cuba to shell Naval Station Guantanamo Bay for 34 hours?
Would it be okay if all Cuba did was make the U.S. forces leave the base?
Do you think President Trump would consider that to be an act of war?
Posted on 2/16/26 at 2:07 pm to theunknownknight
quote:
Lincoln started the war based on his feelings.
I don't agree with that. And I feel history doesn't agree with that either. Lincoln realized what this continent would become if a state or states could just secede willy-nilly if they didn't like what the mother government was putting down. The chain reaction most likely would have seen North America repeating the bloody history of Europe.
You can disagree with him all you want to, but you can't deny his logic or his pragmatism.
Posted on 2/16/26 at 2:07 pm to theunknownknight
quote:Oh, I see.
Exactly. And, at that time, it wasn’t no matter how they spun it after the fact
You just further proved my point. Lincoln started the war based on his feelings. He was butthurt
You're just a moron.
Posted on 2/16/26 at 2:12 pm to Salviati
I guess, though, we are completely ignoring the 10th Amendment? That's okay. You're not alone. So has every single court, judge and politician for the last 160 years.
Posted on 2/16/26 at 2:17 pm to SoFla Tideroller
quote:The Tenth Amendment has been the foundational subject of dozens of important Supreme Court cases, and it has been interpreted in thousands of lower federal court cases over the last 160 years. But it seems you believe that the Tenth Amendment is just another lost cause.
I guess, though, we are completely ignoring the 10th Amendment? That's okay. You're not alone. So has every single court, judge and politician for the last 160 years.
This post was edited on 2/16/26 at 2:19 pm
Posted on 2/16/26 at 2:19 pm to RollTide1987
frick Grant.
Posted on 2/16/26 at 2:23 pm to Salviati
You mean the 10th has been bastardized, ignored and trampled on? I agree.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
That doesn't require any SFP-style interpretation or legalistic explanation. It is very clear. There are no "hidden penumbras" in those words to warp or twist there meaning. Any powers not expressly granted to the federal government by the Constitution are reserved to the states. Full stop (as interweb geeks like to say).
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
That doesn't require any SFP-style interpretation or legalistic explanation. It is very clear. There are no "hidden penumbras" in those words to warp or twist there meaning. Any powers not expressly granted to the federal government by the Constitution are reserved to the states. Full stop (as interweb geeks like to say).
Posted on 2/16/26 at 2:24 pm to udtiger
"The South" was not a recognized country
no invasion.....think of it as ICE and a large Minneapolis Trumpers
And it was about slavery....read SC MS and TX succession declaration
no invasion.....think of it as ICE and a large Minneapolis Trumpers
And it was about slavery....read SC MS and TX succession declaration
Posted on 2/16/26 at 2:51 pm to Cuz413
quote:
Interesting you would bring up the AoC, this was a perpetual union that the States left to ratify the Constitution. Why was it ok for States to leave the AoC, but not the US where secession was not forbidden.
What do you think the world would look like today if the constitution was never written and the 13 states continued to operate as 13 separate countries?
Be honest.
Posted on 2/16/26 at 2:54 pm to SoFla Tideroller
quote:
You mean the 10th has been bastardized, ignored and trampled on? I agree.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
That doesn't require any SFP-style interpretation or legalistic explanation. It is very clear. There are no "hidden penumbras" in those words to warp or twist there meaning. Any powers not expressly granted to the federal government by the Constitution are reserved to the states. Full stop (as interweb geeks like to say).
In 1794 the precedent was established for the legality of secession and how the Federal government would be allowed to deal with the matter of secession.
I'm sorry that you have only studied Lost Cause history and believe that to be factual, because Lost Cause conveniently overlooks early American History.
Posted on 2/16/26 at 2:58 pm to GreatLakesTiger24
quote:
why couldn’t you losers pick your own cotton?
There was no shortage of slaves after the Northern slave owners sold theirs to the South. Or the fact that New Englanders were allowed to continue the slave trade until around 1885, even though the CSA forbid it in it's Constitution.
Bu that's cute you thinking the war was about who was picking cotton
Posted on 2/16/26 at 3:05 pm to udtiger
quote:
frick Grant.
Grant's the only reason the traitors who fought for the Confederacy were pardoned instead of being executed or imprisoned for life.
Posted on 2/16/26 at 3:05 pm to magildachunks
quote:
In 1794 the precedent was established for the legality of secession
What precedent was that?
Posted on 2/16/26 at 3:06 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
Robert E. Lee suffered more casualties and at a higher ratio than Grant did during the war. The myth comes from the Overland Campaign where Grant was maneuvered by Lee to attack in costly frontal assaults against entrenched positions.
This is word play trick that the drunk butcher's defenders like to throw out. Lee vs. Grant - Grant had twice as many casualties, the drunk butchers defenders use the "percentage figure" lol cause his Army was twice as large, this is something a first grader could smoke out.
Lee's army was starving, many had no shoes etc.
The butcher just threw his men in the meat grinder. Not that the drunk butcher cared.
Posted on 2/16/26 at 3:07 pm to Salviati
quote:
TWO of the FIVE majority opinion Justices were NOT appointed by Lincoln.
Salmon P. Chase (Chief Justice), Noah Swayne, Samuel Miller, David Davis, and Stephen Field were appointed by Lincoln
the other 3 were not appointed by Lincoln and dissented in the 5-3 ruling.
quote:
Constitutional construction, like statutory or contract construction, does not require every term to be explicit.
The States granted certain powers to the Fed, the rest they reserved. If it was not granted, the Fed had no power to impede.
Page 4 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News