- 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
0
Posted on 5/31/17 at 11:55 pm to AggieDub14
History is best viewed with an eye to the future.
Posted on 6/1/17 at 12:02 am to BigJim
quote:
Uhmmm, no. Confederate forces fired on Fort Sumter.
Oh for fricks sake.
If you are going to opine on the subject, at least bring more than a middle school level outline to the table.
Yes, the South fired the first shots. But they weren't at the fort contrary to popular belief. They were at vessels attempting to reinforce the fort after succession past a blockade with troops, supplies, and heavy weapons and more than 3 months of requests to withdraw peaceably.
It was only after Lincoln later sent a heavily escorted convoy to resupply the fort by any means nesscessary and additional ignored requests to leave did the Confederates fire at the fort itself before it could be so heavily armed. Furthermore, they delayed until the date of the fleet's arrival before opening fire.
ETA: I'll add that the ONLY Union casualties at the Fort occurred after surrender and were self inflicted: during an accident during a commander requested and Confederate approved condition to do a 100 shot salute to retire Old Glory.
No Union troops were held prisoner, but were immediately released to the care of a Union steamer.
This post was edited on 6/1/17 at 1:25 am
Posted on 6/1/17 at 12:17 am to icebergrich
I'm all for keeping CSA statues.
It makes America unique.
It's one of the few places in the world where the loser has erected statues and for some reason wants to protect that reminder that they lost by exhibiting scoreboard to the public.
It should be a world heritage site under the National Park service category under: Natural Mystery.
It makes America unique.
It's one of the few places in the world where the loser has erected statues and for some reason wants to protect that reminder that they lost by exhibiting scoreboard to the public.
It should be a world heritage site under the National Park service category under: Natural Mystery.
Posted on 6/1/17 at 12:57 am to AggieDub14
quote:
The rest belong in a museum for losers.
They could put them right next to yours I guess.
Posted on 6/1/17 at 1:44 am to AggieDub14
quote:
Move the rebel scum! Let's honor those who fought for the United States. Not against it. The rest belong in a museum for losers.
It does seem odd to get all weepy over such a bunch of incompetent losers.
Posted on 6/1/17 at 1:46 am to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
quote:
It's one of the few places in the world where the loser has erected statues and for some reason wants to protect that reminder that they lost by exhibiting scoreboard to the public.
It's dog whistle racism. They want their loser's shite right in your face.
Posted on 6/1/17 at 1:52 am to Volvagia
quote:
Yes, the South fired the first shots. But they weren't at the fort contrary to popular belief. They were at vessels attempting to reinforce the fort after succession past a blockade with troops, supplies, and heavy weapons and more than 3 months of requests to withdraw peaceably.
Could you please kinda buck up your ignorance a little bit?
Secession (derived from the Latin term secessio) is the withdrawal of a group from a larger entity, especially a political entity (a country), but also any organization, union or military alliance."
Used in a sentence:
"It might seem at first thought to be of little difference whether the present movement at the South be called "secession" or "rebellion." The movers, however, well understand the difference. At the beginning they knew they could never raise their treason to any respectable magnitude by any name which implies violation of law."
A. Lincoln 7/4/61
LINK
In this country, 'secession' is a synonym for 'treason'.
"It is not contended that there is any express law for it, and nothing should ever be implied as law which leads to unjust or absurd consequences."
A. Lincoln 7/4/61
This post was edited on 6/1/17 at 2:00 am
Posted on 6/1/17 at 2:05 am to Volvagia
quote:
It was only after Lincoln later sent a heavily escorted convoy to resupply the fort by any means nesscessary and additional ignored requests to leave did the Confederates fire at the fort itself before it could be so heavily armed. Furthermore, they delayed until the date of the fleet's arrival before opening fire.
"The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere."
A. Lincoln 3/4/61
The federal government had a right and obligation to maintain control of federal property. You can't make that a bad thing no matter how hard you try.
On April 14, 1865, Union general Robert Anderson, who had commanded the fort during the 1861 attack, returned for a ceremony in which Fort Sumter's original U.S. flag was raised once more over the stronghold.
Posted on 6/1/17 at 2:09 am to WhiskeyPapa
I'd like everyone to note that Mr. Citation goes after a semantic tangent that has little to do with my post, nor the the post I responding to, but includes an ad hominem attack of "Could you please kinda buck up your ignorance a little bit?"
Never mind that nothing in his post actually contradicts a single syllable of mine.
Never mind that his previous general contribution to the thread is a statement calling Confederate leaders incompetent is nothing more than a weak troll attempt, as even an amateur historian knows that the Confederates had far superior commanders and generals in general prior to Lincoln getting his head out of his arse and giving Grant command. That if you look at how heavily the logistical deck was stacked against Lee, it's hard to imagine how the hell he was able to resist for as long as he had, much less have straight up success for as long as he did.
Never mind that his butthurt from being owned in a previous thread by numerous posters let him lash out in an exceptionally stupid manner at a post that held literally nothing but the facts.
Tell me, in your 20+ years of online debating, have you ever been wtfpwned by an individual who is incredibly inebriated?
Because if not, you can probably go ahead and stratch that off the list.
Because even drunk, I was willing to let your "incompetent leader" comment go unremarked as it given our past history it would look petty. Pity you didn't come to the same realization before forcing an opening for me.
It's like Lee vs McClellan all over again.
The most amusing thing is that a straw man that I disagree with Lincoln maintaining the Union persists, even though literally my first post, which wasn't even directed to this individual but he nonetheless took objection to, explicitly said I wasn't.
Never mind that nothing in his post actually contradicts a single syllable of mine.
Never mind that his previous general contribution to the thread is a statement calling Confederate leaders incompetent is nothing more than a weak troll attempt, as even an amateur historian knows that the Confederates had far superior commanders and generals in general prior to Lincoln getting his head out of his arse and giving Grant command. That if you look at how heavily the logistical deck was stacked against Lee, it's hard to imagine how the hell he was able to resist for as long as he had, much less have straight up success for as long as he did.
Never mind that his butthurt from being owned in a previous thread by numerous posters let him lash out in an exceptionally stupid manner at a post that held literally nothing but the facts.
Tell me, in your 20+ years of online debating, have you ever been wtfpwned by an individual who is incredibly inebriated?
Because if not, you can probably go ahead and stratch that off the list.
Because even drunk, I was willing to let your "incompetent leader" comment go unremarked as it given our past history it would look petty. Pity you didn't come to the same realization before forcing an opening for me.
It's like Lee vs McClellan all over again.
The most amusing thing is that a straw man that I disagree with Lincoln maintaining the Union persists, even though literally my first post, which wasn't even directed to this individual but he nonetheless took objection to, explicitly said I wasn't.
This post was edited on 6/1/17 at 2:15 am
Posted on 6/1/17 at 2:13 am to Clyde Tipton
quote:
Technically, they just seceded to do their own thing. The Union attacked them for it even though everything was done correctly to exit.
There was and is no way for any state to exit legally. The original states expressly plighted themselves to perpetual Union in the Articles of Confederation.
That is 1778 if you can't read Latin numbers.
"The sophism itself is, that any state of the Union may, consistently with the national Constitution, and therefore lawfully, and peacefully, withdraw from the Union, without the consent of the Union, or of any other state. The little disguise that the supposed right is to be exercised only for just cause, themselves to be the sole judge of its justice, is too thin to merit any notice."
A. Lincoln 7/4/61
The rebellion against the lawful authority was put down in due course.
This post was edited on 6/1/17 at 2:15 am
Posted on 6/1/17 at 2:20 am to Volvagia
quote:
I'd like everyone to note that Mr. Citation goes after a semantic tangent that has little to do with my post, nor the the post I responding to, but includes an ad hominem attack of "Could you please kinda buck up your ignorance a little bit?"
You sound like an ignorant rube when you say 'succession', but that is your business. At least the spell check doesn't catch it, right?
Posted on 6/1/17 at 2:27 am to Volvagia
quote:
Never mind that his previous general contribution to the thread is a statement calling Confederate leaders incompetent is nothing more than a weak troll attempt, as even an amateur historian knows that the Confederates had far superior commanders and generals in general prior to Lincoln getting his head out of his arse and giving Grant command.
'Fraid not. For every Lee there was a Pemberton, for every Jackson, a Bragg. And the CSA let ol' peg leg Hood run wild through several states until he wrecked the Army of Tennessee.
The CSA government could neither feed the army nor the people. Lee had to plunder and pillage in Maryland and later in Pennsylvania because the Richmond government could not feed his army.
"The Southern bread riots were events of civil unrest in the Confederacy, perpetrated mostly by women in March and April 1863. During these riots, which occurred in cities throughout the South, women and men violently invaded and looted various shops and stores."
LINK
After Lee's half starved army was flanked outside Petersburg in 1865, Lee tried to flee but he lost half of his 60,000 man force in ten days.
On the other hand:
"The national resources, then, are unexhausted, and, as we believe, inexhaustible. The public purpose to reestablish and maintain the national authority is unchanged, and, as we believe, unchangeable."
A. Lincoln 12/6/64
LINK
This post was edited on 6/1/17 at 2:40 am
Posted on 6/1/17 at 2:43 am to Volvagia
quote:
It's like Lee vs McClellan all over again.
This post was edited on 6/1/17 at 2:44 am
Posted on 6/1/17 at 3:03 am to WhiskeyPapa
quote:
Southern bread riots were events of civil unrest in the Confederacy, perpetrated mostly by women in March and April 1863. During these riots, which occurred in cities throughout the South, women and men violently invaded and looted various shops and stores."
Meanwhile, with the Confederacy unable to provide a simple stable such as bread to its citizens and more importantly to its army, Lee was able to wage modern straight up battle against an well equipped army that outnumbered him more than 2-1....and still won at Chancellorsville.
Icon of incompetence right there.
Thanks for looking up resources that validates my points. Truly do appreciate it.
This post was edited on 6/1/17 at 3:04 am
Posted on 6/1/17 at 3:12 am to icebergrich
quote:
All four senators who voted against the bills were black. Two white senators supported the measures.
Well.. this isn't about race at all.
Posted on 6/1/17 at 6:34 am to Sentrius
quote:
This was widely expected.
The Senate President John Alario put the bill in that committee to kill it and keep it from getting to the full senate floor where it had a great chancing of getting passed. It's committee that's majority democrat and and it was the wrong committee to put in as it should've gone to the arts and preservation committee.
Alario being the corrupt power hungry sycophant he is wants to protect the democrat Governor from having to make a tough veto. He truly is a thug piece of shite. frick him.
Ding!
Posted on 6/1/17 at 6:42 am to WhiskeyPapa
quote:
Never mind that his previous general contribution to the thread is a statement calling Confederate leaders incompetent is nothing more than a weak troll attempt, as even an amateur historian knows that the Confederates had far superior commanders and generals in general prior to Lincoln getting his head out of his arse and giving Grant command.
'Fraid not. For every Lee there was a Pemberton, for every Jackson, a Bragg. And the CSA let ol' peg leg Hood run wild through several states until he wrecked the Army of Tennessee.
In fact elevating Hood to command the Army of Tennessee was an admission that the leadership pool was depleted. And that was known. There wasn't anyone else.
Posted on 6/1/17 at 7:05 am to Volvagia
quote:
Meanwhile, with the Confederacy unable to provide a simple stable such as bread to its citizens and more importantly to its army, Lee was able to wage modern straight up battle against an well equipped army that outnumbered him more than 2-1....and still won at Chancellorsville.
Lee lost 238 field grade officers on the Chancellorsville campaign as well as Jackson. Which means he lost.
You need to be able to win wars, not battles.
This post was edited on 6/1/17 at 7:05 am
Posted on 6/1/17 at 7:13 am to AggieDub14
quote:
Move the rebel scum! Let's honor those who fought for the United States. Not against it. The rest belong in a museum for losers.
Let's not forget to burn all the books with references to things that do not "fit the narrative"....that has work well in the past.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News