- 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 2:45 pm to Cuz413
Posted on 2/17/26 at 2:45 pm to Cuz413
quote:
Lincoln had no interest in freeing the slaves
Didn’t Lincoln say if he could keep slavery and unite the country he would.
If he could keep some slavery but unite the country he would.
If he could get rid of slavery and unite the country he would.
Also didn’t Lincoln jump on freeing the slaves once he found out that France and Great Britain were about to join in helping the south?
0
Posted on 2/17/26 at 3:34 pm to cfish140
The Confederacy could not overcome issues like industrial production , manpower advantage and the fact that the Union held just about EVERY strategic advantage. They controlled the rivers and the coasts. They had armies working with free rein in the interior.
After Shiloh and New Orleans it was always a matter of time.
After Shiloh and New Orleans it was always a matter of time.
Posted on 2/17/26 at 6:42 pm to GreatLakesTiger24
quote:
pick your own cotton
Oh that they had. And my German immigrant forefathers would have been in the fields, but what a different sort of place this country would be…
Posted on 2/17/26 at 7:59 pm to KiwiHead
And in retrospect, the confederacy is portrayed as being the evil ones, but the African tribes gathered and enslaved and sold, and the New England shipping companies trafficked.
Posted on 2/17/26 at 10:10 pm to threeputt23
quote:
And in retrospect, the confederacy is portrayed as being the evil ones, but the African tribes gathered and enslaved and sold, and the New England shipping companies trafficked.
What do African tribes and NE shipping companies have to do with a discussion abt warring Northern v Southern states?
Posted on 2/17/26 at 10:29 pm to KiwiHead
quote:
The Confederacy could not overcome issues like industrial production , manpower advantage and the fact that the Union held just about EVERY strategic advantage. They controlled the rivers and the coasts. They had armies working with free rein in the interior. After Shiloh and New Orleans it was always a matter of time.
Tell that to North Vietnam or the Taliban.
Where there’s a will, there’s a way. The South could have won. Guerrilla warfare should have been the strategy. And a fight to the death resolve Japan had.
The South simply quit. Taliban never did. North Vietnam never did
Posted on 2/18/26 at 8:52 am to JoeyP239
quote:
Where there’s a will, there’s a way. The South could have won. Guerrilla warfare should have been the strategy. And a fight to the death resolve Japan had.
Several Confederate leaders wanted to do this.
However, the main reason Lee surrendered and advised Davis to do the same was his worry about the time it would take for the south to recover.
If the guerrilla warfare continued, Lee knew that it would lead to even harsher treatment of southerners by the north and that the reconstruction phase would take even longer.
In that regard, he was correct.
However, a majority of the south wanted it to end.
The south was never a united front and Lee knew that the only way they even had a chance to win was to force the attack as just playing defense was not an option due to the limited resources the south had.
Posted on 2/19/26 at 6:46 am to JoeyP239
But, the South did not fight that type of war. They fought a conventional war and got beat. I get tired of all the "ifs" and "buts" of Lost Cause types in an attempt to say " but if, the South had done this, or if Lee had done that" They did not, plus if you play that game you have to assume a counter move by the North and Grant doing something as well to meet the new move. You can't expect a static response if you play hypotheticals.
Posted on 2/19/26 at 7:34 am to ATrillionaire
Because the common propaganda is that the South fought to keep their slaves. The truth is so much more complex.
quote:
What do African tribes and NE shipping companies have to do with a discussion abt warring Northern v Southern states?
The North was still active in human trafficking long after the slave trade was outlawed in 1808 in the US.
Posted on 2/19/26 at 8:01 am to Cuz413
How does one truth affect another?
Posted on 2/19/26 at 8:32 am to ATrillionaire
quote:
How does one truth affect another?
When it nullifies the propaganda about the behaviors and intentions of both sides of a dispute.
Posted on 2/19/26 at 12:34 pm to Cuz413
quote:
Yankees were, and still are, spineless, money hungry, cowards that have other men fight their battles.
Wait til you learn about the southern planter elite!
Posted on 2/20/26 at 11:06 pm to KiwiHead
quote:
But, the South did not fight that type of war. They fought a conventional war and got beat. I get tired of all the "ifs" and "buts" of Lost Cause types in an attempt to say " but if, the South had done this, or if Lee had done that" They did not, plus if you play that game you have to assume a counter move by the North and Grant doing something as well to meet the new move. You can't expect a static response if you play hypotheticals.
The only counter to people that won’t quit or guerrilla warfare is nukes which obviously were not available back then.
My point was that for those saying “the North had so many advantages it’d have been impossible for the South to win”…is clearly false and it’s been shown thru out history. The South could have won. There’s no counter available in unconventional warfare.
You can’t govern a people that doesn’t want to be governed. Look at the Revolutionary war. Tiny 13 colonies defeating a British Empire.
The South breaking away from the North should have been easy compared to that. But it was two things that prevented that. First, terrible military strategy. That’s why I laugh when people talk about how great these southern generals were with limited resources. They clearly weren’t bc eventually they quit. A defensive guerilla war was what should have been taking place. Not whatever it was they were trying.
And the politicians did a bad enough job not rounding up support to stay a sovereign nation. There were simply too many northern sympathizers living in the South at the time. But, you could also say the same thing during the Rev War where many were still loyal to the British.
There was no “US sympathizers” in Afghanistan or the NVA. So they waited it out whether it took 10 or 20 years. That’s the resolve the South needed to have. And they simply didn’t have it,
Page 9 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News