- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- 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 7:23 pm to magildachunks
Posted on 2/16/26 at 7:23 pm to magildachunks
quote:
Which makes the South's decision to secede really stupid and short-sighted
So just paying a sky high tariff that benefitted the North was ok? It was fricking extortion to force the Southern States to be vassals to be pillaged when needed.
Lincoln had no interest in freeing the slaves because he wanted and the North needed to maintain high tariffs. The CSA was an economic threat to the North.
3
Posted on 2/16/26 at 7:29 pm to Cuz413
quote:
So just paying a sky high tariff that benefitted the North was ok? It was fricking extortion to force the Southern States to be vassals to be pillaged when needed.
It's getting too easy to disprove every goalpost move y'all make to not have to admit secession was all about slavery
Take New Orleans, the biggest economic factor in the South
quote:
Economic Fears: The city's wealthy elite, heavily involved in international trade and relying on federal tariffs for sugar, feared war would destroy commerce.
quote:
The CSA was an economic threat to the North.
Posted on 2/16/26 at 7:55 pm to magildachunks
45% tariffs in the North, 10% tariffs in the South why would any country trade with the North at those rates.
Sure it was a minor part. All of 4 of the 11 States mentioned it in their reasoning. But 7 of 11 didn't. And 3 specifically mentioned the North not following the Constitution.
Let's just forget Lincoln was cool with slavery extending until the end of the 19th century, and there wasn't history of the South being abused by high tariffs.
Just slavery. I think that was all the CSA Constitution was. Just 1,000 words, all slavery.
quote:
It's getting too easy to disprove every goalpost move y'all make to not have to admit secession was all about slavery
Sure it was a minor part. All of 4 of the 11 States mentioned it in their reasoning. But 7 of 11 didn't. And 3 specifically mentioned the North not following the Constitution.
Let's just forget Lincoln was cool with slavery extending until the end of the 19th century, and there wasn't history of the South being abused by high tariffs.
Just slavery. I think that was all the CSA Constitution was. Just 1,000 words, all slavery.
Posted on 2/16/26 at 8:27 pm to Cuz413
Slavery was a vehicle
It wasn’t the cause
Here’s a simple thought experiment: if we were to suddenly breakout in civil war given the current tensions (let’s say stemming from COVID, the 2020 election, the “vaccine” to today), what would be the “cause” of the war to people 200 years from now who will inevitably have mostly curated historical narratives?
If the war started in 2021, for instance, what would every seceding state say: COVID. But, for us, it wouldn’t be ACTUALLY COVID we were fighting about (whether it was real or a lie). It would be about government overreach and control infringing upon our rights, killing our economy - COVID would be the language of the day to encapsulate that issue. But the issue itself is much larger and more complicated. The history test 200 years from now would just say COVID was the cause.
Another example, let’s say we have a civil war that starts when TX secedes from the country because the USA won’t enforce the borders. Is the cause because TX hates Mexicans or is the cause the “Federal government wasn’t fulfilling its constitutional obligations and was preventing TX from protecting itself”
200 years from now the war will be framed over the south hating immigrants. But that isn’t the issue. The South hated being invaded by illegal foreigners and had no recourse to protect itself.
Saying “slavery” was THE CAUSE of the war is a very simple minded view. THE CAUSE was government overreach by a set of states who viewed the southern states as not particularly loyal to the nation as a whole. The south was forming alliances with Europe the North just fought. The South was getting filthy rich in cotton and their voices weren’t being represented in Washington. They viewed Lincoln’s election as a betrayal. He wasn’t even on the ballots in a lot of the south. The south was pissed and the north was trying to take the south’s legs out from under them. The issue the North used was economic - end slavery to weaken the south (while northern states MAINTAINED slavery, for the smooth brains).
In the end it was southern states wanting to maintain that independence over a growing federal government who wanted more state control. Slavery was the vehicle used to encapsulate the issues above (like COVID or immigration would be used today).
It wasn’t the cause
Here’s a simple thought experiment: if we were to suddenly breakout in civil war given the current tensions (let’s say stemming from COVID, the 2020 election, the “vaccine” to today), what would be the “cause” of the war to people 200 years from now who will inevitably have mostly curated historical narratives?
If the war started in 2021, for instance, what would every seceding state say: COVID. But, for us, it wouldn’t be ACTUALLY COVID we were fighting about (whether it was real or a lie). It would be about government overreach and control infringing upon our rights, killing our economy - COVID would be the language of the day to encapsulate that issue. But the issue itself is much larger and more complicated. The history test 200 years from now would just say COVID was the cause.
Another example, let’s say we have a civil war that starts when TX secedes from the country because the USA won’t enforce the borders. Is the cause because TX hates Mexicans or is the cause the “Federal government wasn’t fulfilling its constitutional obligations and was preventing TX from protecting itself”
200 years from now the war will be framed over the south hating immigrants. But that isn’t the issue. The South hated being invaded by illegal foreigners and had no recourse to protect itself.
Saying “slavery” was THE CAUSE of the war is a very simple minded view. THE CAUSE was government overreach by a set of states who viewed the southern states as not particularly loyal to the nation as a whole. The south was forming alliances with Europe the North just fought. The South was getting filthy rich in cotton and their voices weren’t being represented in Washington. They viewed Lincoln’s election as a betrayal. He wasn’t even on the ballots in a lot of the south. The south was pissed and the north was trying to take the south’s legs out from under them. The issue the North used was economic - end slavery to weaken the south (while northern states MAINTAINED slavery, for the smooth brains).
In the end it was southern states wanting to maintain that independence over a growing federal government who wanted more state control. Slavery was the vehicle used to encapsulate the issues above (like COVID or immigration would be used today).
This post was edited on 2/16/26 at 8:37 pm
Posted on 2/16/26 at 8:57 pm to theunknownknight
quote:You're willfully ignorant.
Slavery was a vehicle
It wasn’t the cause
Here’s a simple thought experiment: if we were to suddenly breakout in civil war given the current tensions (let’s say stemming from COVID, the 2020 election, the “vaccine” to today), what would be the “cause” of the war to people 200 years from now who will inevitably have mostly curated historical narratives?
If the war started in 2021, for instance, what would every seceding state say: COVID. But, for us, it wouldn’t be ACTUALLY COVID we were fighting about (whether it was real or a lie). It would be about government overreach and control infringing upon our rights, killing our economy - COVID would be the language of the day to encapsulate that issue. But the issue itself is much larger and more complicated. The history test 200 years from now would just say COVID was the cause.
Another example, let’s say we have a civil war that starts when TX secedes from the country because the USA won’t enforce the borders. Is the cause because TX hates Mexicans or is the cause the “Federal government wasn’t fulfilling its constitutional obligations and was preventing TX from protecting itself”
200 years from now the war will be framed over the south hating immigrants. But that isn’t the issue. The South hated being invaded by illegal foreigners and had no recourse to protect itself.
Saying “slavery” was THE CAUSE of the war is a very simple minded view. THE CAUSE was government overreach by a set of states who viewed the southern states as not particularly loyal to the nation as a whole. The south was forming alliances with Europe the North just fought. The South was getting filthy rich in cotton and their voices weren’t being represented in Washington. They viewed Lincoln’s election as a betrayal. He wasn’t even on the ballots in a lot of the south. The south was pissed and the north was trying to take the south’s legs out from under them. The issue the North used was economic - end slavery to weaken the south (while northern states MAINTAINED slavery, for the smooth brains).
In the end it was southern states wanting to maintain that independence over a growing federal government who wanted more state control. Slavery was the vehicle used to encapsulate the issues above (like COVID or immigration would be used today).
You're dumber than dirt.
All that typed bullshite when you could have just admitted that you're a fricking moron.
We don't have to guess the reasons why the people who voted to secede did so. There are documents written by the people who chose to secede telling the world why they chose to secede.
Mississippi:
quote:
In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth.
Texas:
quote:
The government of the United States, by certain joint resolutions, bearing date the 1st day of March, in the year A.D. 1845, proposed to the Republic of Texas, then *a free, sovereign and independent nation* [emphasis in the original], the annexation of the latter to the former, as one of the co-equal states thereof,
The people of Texas, by deputies in convention assembled, on the fourth day of July of the same year, assented to and accepted said proposals and formed a constitution for the proposed State, upon which on the 29th day of December in the same year, said State was formally admitted into the Confederated Union.
Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?
The controlling majority of the Federal Government, under various pretences and disguises, has so administered the same as to exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions, from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean, for the avowed purpose of acquiring sufficient power in the common government to use it as a means of destroying the institutions of Texas and her sister slaveholding States.
Virginia:
quote:Etc. etc. and so forth.
The people of Virginia, in their ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America, adopted by them in Convention on the twenty-fifth day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, having declared that the powers granted under the said Constitution were derived from the people of the United States, and might be resumed whensoever the same should be perverted to their injury and oppression; and the Federal Government, having perverted said powers, not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern Slaveholding States.
Posted on 2/16/26 at 9:03 pm to RollTide1987
Many people also forget or never learned that there were free black plantation owners….who owned slaves. Much like the tribes in Africa — owning there own race never bothered them
Posted on 2/16/26 at 9:09 pm to Juan Betanzos
quote:
Many people also forget or never learned that there were free black plantation owners….who owned slaves. Much like the tribes in Africa — owning there own race never bothered them
And they chose to support secession to protect their "right" to own slaves.
We aren't forgetting about them, we are just lumping them in with all the other slaveowners who supported secession.
Posted on 2/16/26 at 9:15 pm to theunknownknight
quote:
Here’s a simple thought experiment: if we were to suddenly breakout in civil war given the current tensions (let’s say stemming from COVID, the 2020 election, the “vaccine” to today), what would be the “cause” of the war to people 200 years from now who will inevitably have mostly curated historical narratives?
This right here would be the parallel to 1860.
The Southern states pulled the trigger on secession because the candidate they wanted to win the Presidency didn't win.
So they threw a hissy fit.
This is after they tried to manipulate the election to go their way by leaving Lincoln off the ballot. When that didn't work and they realized that they weren't as powerful as they believed themselves to be in the Federal Government, they decided to start their own government...
with Hookers...
and blackjack.
Posted on 2/16/26 at 9:19 pm to Cuz413
quote:
Sure it was a minor part. All of 4 of the 11 States mentioned it in their reasoning. But 7 of 11 didn't.
And not a single one mentioned tariffs as a reason to secede.
So...why do you keep bringing up tariffs as a reason?
Posted on 2/16/26 at 10:57 pm to Cuz413
quote:
So just paying a sky high tariff that benefitted the North was ok?
I thought the foreigners paid the tariffs.
Posted on 2/16/26 at 10:59 pm to ned nederlander
quote:
thought the foreigners paid the tariffs.
He's also leaving out the fact that the merchants in New Orleans and the sugar industry relied on those tariffs to protect their financial interests
Posted on 2/16/26 at 11:23 pm to Salviati
quote:
We don't have to guess the reasons why the people who voted to secede did so. There are documents written by the people who chose to secede telling the world why they chose to secede.
You know what you won't find in any "Cause", "Declaration", or "Article" of Secession?
A single mention of Tariffs. Not a one.
You will find Slavery mentioned.
And a whole lot of mentioning of breaking the Constitution and Constitutional subverting.
They all mention how the Federal Government ignored the Constitution so much that it was no longer effective.
What they don't mention is examples of this Constitutional malfeasance.
Not one example of the Federal Government ignoring the Constitution is given throughout every Secession document.
Although they bitched about how egregious it was.
Not a single example given, except for the fear that it wouldn't protect the State's Rights to own slaves.
That's what it came down to: The South learned that they couldn't prevent a Federal Law being passed by popular vote abolishing slavery if it was to be presented. That's why they secede as soon as Lincoln won the election.
They did everything in their power to rig the election in their favor, and still lost. He wasn't even on the ballot in 11 states... didn't matter
Posted on 2/17/26 at 12:57 am to geauxtigers87
quote:
natchez mississippi had the largest concentration of millionaires on earth before the war
Natchez's identity and economy is based on the Old South myth. Every insurance salesman and furniture store owner thinks he's Rhett Butler reincarnated. Left unstated is the reason Natchez has all those stately mansions to tour is because the town surrendered without firing a shot. Natchezans avoided having their property burned and confiscated because they raised the white flag at the first opportunity.
I have several ancestors who fought in the war, including one who was captured at Vicksburg and another who was wounded and developed a lifelong addiction to morphine as a result. I can recognize their courage and sacrifice while also acknowledging it was for a bullshite cause.
Posted on 2/17/26 at 1:00 am to Jim Rockford
quote:
I can recognize their courage and sacrifice while also acknowledging it was for a bullshite cause.
Posted on 2/17/26 at 7:23 am to Salviati
All you did was prove you can't read from the context of historical perspective. What you quoted emphatically proved my point but you are clearly to stupid to understand why.
Posted on 2/17/26 at 7:27 am to Cuz413
quote:why are you lying?
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.
Posted on 2/17/26 at 7:33 am to magildachunks
quote:
What they don't mention is examples of this Constitutional malfeasance.
Not one example of the Federal Government ignoring the Constitution is given throughout every Secession document.
Although they bitched about how egregious it was.
Not a single example given, except for the fear that it wouldn't protect the State's Rights to own slaves.
Mississippi:
quote:
It has invaded a State, and invested with the honors of martyrdom the wretch whose purpose was to apply flames to our dwellings, and the weapons of destruction to our lives.
This is directly referring to the refusal to hand over John Brown and his co-conspirators.
South Carolina and Georgia mention it as well.
There were also States that made no mention at all of slavery. But 4 of the 11 directly mention it, so that's all the secession movement was about.
Posted on 2/17/26 at 7:45 am to GreatLakesTiger24
quote:
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.
quote:
why are you lying?
Or, you could do a little research and know that while the US stopped the importation of African slaves in the early 1800s, Cuba and Brazil didn't abolish it until the mid 1880s.
Clippers built in Maine were operated out of New York and New England that transported slaves to these countries. It is well documented that Britain spotted these ships but did not board due to American sovereignty.
Posted on 2/17/26 at 7:46 am to magildachunks
quote:
He's also leaving out the fact that the merchants in New Orleans and the sugar industry relied on those tariffs to protect their financial interests
So now one city represents all 11 States?
Posted on 2/17/26 at 7:57 am to jcaz
quote:
Because you think the civil war has anything to do with modern federal oppression. Shows how clueless you are
So tell me, when exactly did the Federal Government prove they can what they want, when they want, and if you don't agree, they'll kill you for it?
Southern secession was the ultimate check on the rising power of the Federal Government. Lincoln's trashing of the Constitution and the Union's willingness to ignore it for their monetary benefit was the final nail in the coffin of the United States the founders fought to create.
When we look at who is considered the "worst" presidents, many list Woodrow Wilson, Lyndon Johnson, Franklin Roosevelt, Nixon, Obama, Biden, even Trump. None of these presidents would have had the power to do what they have done without Lincoln's actions to create the power of the central government.
Page 7 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News