- 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 2/17/26 at 8:01 am to theunknownknight
Posted on 2/17/26 at 8:01 am to theunknownknight
quote:
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.
When people tell you why they did something shortly after doing it, it's best to believe them. Secession would never have happened without the institution of slavery as its catalyst. You can argue against it until you're blue in the face but that's just historical fact.
0
Posted on 2/17/26 at 8:13 am to Cuz413
quote:
Yankees were, and still are, spineless, money hungry, cowards that have other men fight their battles.
Imagine waking up and being this guy
Posted on 2/17/26 at 8:16 am to theunknownknight
quote:
Slavery was a vehicle
It wasn’t the cause
For the war? Absolutely
For secession, a minority of the States did explicitly mention it in their secession documents. The majority didn't.
The evidence that we were always headed towards a split goes back in the 1790s when Rufus King and Oliver Ellsworth met with John Taylor of Caroline to discuss dissolving the Union. The differences in the cultures was present since before the Constitution was ratified. The North threatened to secede several times before SC nullification with Louisiana purchase and the blockades of the war of 1812 being the two most notables.
The war was about money and power. The overwhelming majority of neither side cared about dying to free slaves.
Every time a thread about the war comes up, it shows time and time again just how well the propaganda of the school system has worked. Far too many posters believe there was a one word issue for what was a very complex and often nuanced decades long tension between two sides.
"You can't understand the history of any period unless you know the people who lived in it and what they were thinking." Harry Truman
Posted on 2/17/26 at 9:13 am 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 3 specifically mentioned the North not following the Constitution.
quote:
For secession, a minority of the States did explicitly mention it in their secession documents. The majority didn't.
WRONG.
SIX states state that slavery was the reason for secession:
Arkansas,
Georgia,
Mississippi,
South Carolina,
Texas, and
Virginia,
FOUR states did not give any reasons for secession.
Florida,
Louisiana,
North Carolina, and
Tennessee
Alabama was too chickenshit to state the reason directly, but states that it wants to join the other slaveholding States of the South:
Whereas, the election of Abraham Lincoln and Hannibal Hamlin to the offices of president and vice-president of the United States of America, by a sectional party, avowedly hostile to the domestic institutions and to the peace and security of the people of the State of Alabama, preceded by many and dangerous infractions of the constitution of the United States by many of the States and people of the Northern section, is a political wrong of so insulting and menacing a character as to justify the people of the State of Alabama in the adoption of prompt and decided measures for their future peace and security, therefore:
* * *
And as it is the desire and purpose of the people of Alabama to meet the slaveholding States of the South, who may approve such purpose, in order to frame a provisional as well as permanent Government upon the principles of the Constitution of the United States,
This post was edited on 2/17/26 at 9:26 am
Posted on 2/17/26 at 9:26 am to theunknownknight
quote:
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 9:39 am to RollTide1987
frick the Union, frick Yankees, frick Lincoln, frick Grant, frick sherman, and frick you for sucking them off nonstop.
Posted on 2/17/26 at 9:53 am to grizzlylongcut
quote:You seem upset about something that happened over 160 years ago. Are you the descendant of slaves?
frick the Union, frick Yankees, frick Lincoln, frick Grant, frick sherman, and frick you for sucking them off nonstop.
Posted on 2/17/26 at 9:59 am to wadewilson
quote:
How'd that work out?
Tongue, meet boot. You’d have definitely been a loyalist.
quote:
A. The Articles of Confederation were dead decades before the Civil War and the union had been established.
There’s this little thing called the constitution and the bill of rights. Read up on them.
quote:
B. The CSA started the war. Remember those mostly peaceful cannons at Sumter?
Oh the ones on the land the Union was trespassing upon?
Posted on 2/17/26 at 10:04 am to grizzlylongcut
quote:The land was owned by the federal government. Fort Sumter was federal land, not state land.
Oh the ones on the land the Union was trespassing upon?
Posted on 2/17/26 at 10:07 am to Salviati
quote:
The land was owned by the federal government. Fort Sumter was federal land, not state land.
That state and the lands it was on and its inhabitants no longer considered themselves to be a member the union. Hence the whole trespassing bit. Unless you think secession was illegal.
Posted on 2/17/26 at 10:08 am to grizzlylongcut
quote:you sure are one angry elf
frick the Union, frick Yankees, frick Lincoln, frick Grant, frick sherman, and frick you for sucking them off nonstop.
Posted on 2/17/26 at 10:08 am to RollTide1987
quote:
Grant and other Union commanders out west were less concerned about capturing cities and more concerned about controlling rivers, railroads, and destroying entire enemy armies.
I know the convo has evolved a bit, but this is a really interesting point that was great to highlight. Previous wars had been about diminishing enemy fighters. The Civil war and the Crimean War were the first examples of "modern wars" where defeating the infrastructure was one of the requirements that came from command. Shermans march was one the first example of "total war" tactics, focused on destroying the economic and logistical capabilities, not just enemy manpower.
Kind of a unique distinction that gets glossed over in the politics of this war.
Posted on 2/17/26 at 11:12 am to Harry Caray
quote:He’s a South pole.
you sure are one angry elf
Posted on 2/17/26 at 11:24 am to grizzlylongcut
quote:
That state and the lands it was on and its inhabitants no longer considered themselves to be a member the union
How'd that work out?
Posted on 2/17/26 at 11:53 am to Mr. Misanthrope
Chattanooga should have driven the point home and slapped them in the face. They should have realized their folly at Shiloh, and should have been crystal clear after Vicksburg. After Chattanooga there was no doubt. By that time Grant had destroyed 2 whole armies.....then he unleashed Sherman.
Posted on 2/17/26 at 12:28 pm to grizzlylongcut
quote:Fort Sumter became federal land in 1836. South Carolina formally ceded title and ownership of the site to the United States government. It doesn't matter if South Carolina voted to secede. Even if the mainland was no longer a state, Fort Sumter was federal land.quote:That state and the lands it was on and its inhabitants no longer considered themselves to be a member the union. Hence the whole trespassing bit. Unless you think secession was illegal.
The land was owned by the federal government. Fort Sumter was federal land, not state land.
I assure you, the inhabitants of the island on which Fort Sumter was located considered themselves to be members of the union, until they were shelled for 34 hours.
It's analogous to GITMO. It doesn't matter if the rest of Cuba became a Communist country. The U.S. has a perpetual lease for GITMO, until both countries decide to amend or terminate the lease.
This post was edited on 2/17/26 at 12:32 pm
Posted on 2/17/26 at 12:39 pm to KiwiHead
quote:
Chattanooga should have driven the point home and slapped them in the face. They should have realized their folly at Shiloh, and should have been crystal clear after Vicksburg. After Chattanooga there was no doubt. By that time Grant had destroyed 2 whole armies.....then he unleashed Sherman
Most say Gettysburg was the downfall of the confederates but I think it was Chattanooga and it was a direct result of Jefferson Davis not replacing Bragg after all his captains wanted him demoted after Chicamauga, including Longstreet who was the best officer the South had outside of stonewall and Lee. Longstreet saves the day at Chicamauga and routes Rosecrans and the Union but Bragg refuses to push the pursuit and ends up laying siege to Chattanooga. They allow Grant to come in and escape the siege with a frontal attack that should have NEVER worked against the rebel defensice entrenchments outside the city. Incompetence from Bragg. This effectively swung the door to the South wide open.
Davis should have replaced Bragg with Beauregard like his officers suggested but he had a personal grievance with him and wouldn’t do it. Even after Bragg was finally demoted he replaces he with Joe fricking Johnston who did nothing but retreat his whole career.
Bobby Lee did all he could in the spring of 64 against Grant. Out maneuvering him in every way and holding the line at Spotsylvania even reportedly making Grant cry after swinging both his flanks in the opening stages of the 40 days. But in the end he was to outnumbered and losing both Jeb Stuart and Longstreet in the same day was way to costly to overcome.
This post was edited on 2/17/26 at 12:43 pm
Posted on 2/17/26 at 12:57 pm to cfish140
Would have been nice if the US simply let the CSA exist in whatever way they wanted.
If for instance today, California wanted to secede from the US, let them.
I do wonder what real public opinion was in the north in the late 1850s and if there was a “if they secede who cares let them it’s not worth dying over” attitude
If for instance today, California wanted to secede from the US, let them.
I do wonder what real public opinion was in the north in the late 1850s and if there was a “if they secede who cares let them it’s not worth dying over” attitude
Posted on 2/17/26 at 1:17 pm to Cuz413
Slavery is not compatible with our Constitution. That’s why.
Posted on 2/17/26 at 1:20 pm to RollTide1987
A lot can still be learned from that great struggle of our nations history:
Patrick Cleburne - Jan 2. 1864 proposal to the Army of the Tennessee:
"......It means that the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern school teachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the war; will be impressed by all the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, our maimed veterans as fit objects for derision..."
"It is said slavery is all we are fighting for, and if we give it up we give up all. Even if this were true, which we deny, slavery is not all our enemies are fighting for. It is merely the pretense to establish sectional superiority and a more centralized form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and liberties."
Then you have what I think sums up the war as a whole since the Confederacy was never a united front:
William T. Sherman:
"Southern men make good soldiers, but lousy confederates."
Patrick Cleburne - Jan 2. 1864 proposal to the Army of the Tennessee:
"......It means that the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern school teachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the war; will be impressed by all the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, our maimed veterans as fit objects for derision..."
"It is said slavery is all we are fighting for, and if we give it up we give up all. Even if this were true, which we deny, slavery is not all our enemies are fighting for. It is merely the pretense to establish sectional superiority and a more centralized form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and liberties."
Then you have what I think sums up the war as a whole since the Confederacy was never a united front:
William T. Sherman:
"Southern men make good soldiers, but lousy confederates."
Page 8 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News