Started By
Message
re: I blame The South for Confederate nescience
Posted on 6/26/15 at 10:57 pm to Sleeping Tiger
Posted on 6/26/15 at 10:57 pm to Sleeping Tiger
quote:
Do you have any idea the inherent disadvantages The South had, compared to the inherent advantages of the Union?
And yet, the South was foolish enough to shoot first. Twice.
Dumbfricks
quote:
with that imbalance of fairness The South still put up a fight good enough to win if not for some impossible barriers to winning the war.
Good job, good effort, South.
**golf clap**
quote:
A few keywords: naval blockade, printing 400 million greenbacks, boat loads of immigrant soldiers.
arse. Kicking.
/EndWar
0
Posted on 6/26/15 at 10:59 pm to TbirdSpur2010
It's okay to let it go, nobody should be clinging to these debates day in and day out.. but there is good reason to have a more full and truthful perspective on what happened.
Also, that's wrong -- The South was not 'whooped', if anything The South should be, and is, incredibly proud of the effort they put forth knowing the rules were very different for the two sides.
It took incredible honor to do what Lee did, he could have been in command of the sure winners, he chose loyalty to home, with full knowledge that losing was inevitable.
Also, that's wrong -- The South was not 'whooped', if anything The South should be, and is, incredibly proud of the effort they put forth knowing the rules were very different for the two sides.
It took incredible honor to do what Lee did, he could have been in command of the sure winners, he chose loyalty to home, with full knowledge that losing was inevitable.
Posted on 6/26/15 at 11:03 pm to Sleeping Tiger
quote:
The South should be, and is, incredibly proud of the effort they put forth
I said "good job, good effort"!
quote:
It took incredible honor to do what Lee did, he could have been in command of the sure winners, he chose loyalty to home, with full knowledge that losing was inevitable.
Meh, I see that as foolish, but to each their own.
I'm just glad he lost (even though I share his name
). No denying or detracting from his military prowess, however. Also, I'm in way too good a mood right now, so I'm really not tryna butt heads with ya too much tonight, ol' sport--we know we have differing opinions, and that's cool.
World keeps spinnin'
This post was edited on 6/26/15 at 11:05 pm
Posted on 6/26/15 at 11:04 pm to Sleeping Tiger
quote:
And with that imbalance of fairness...
The what??? This is an entirely new concept for me. In all wars the warring parties must be balanced, or by gum it just isn't fair?
No matter the "unfairness" of it all, the South got a butt-kicking. No arm-waving will change that.
Posted on 6/26/15 at 11:04 pm to Sleeping Tiger
quote:
I'm sure paying 90% of federal revenue while having 18.5% of its citizens was an afterthought. Along with all the other antagonizing economic bullshite.
So this is what you're saying caused the Civil War? That if the South had a choice between eliminating that tariff of eliminating slavery, they'd end the tariff?
Posted on 6/26/15 at 11:06 pm to finestfirst79
quote:
The what??? This is an entirely new concept for me. In all wars the warring parties must be balanced, or by gum it just isn't fair?
I mean...was the Union supposed to just level the playing field or spot the rebels a couple of victories or something?
Posted on 6/26/15 at 11:06 pm to TeLeFaWx
quote:
So this is what you're saying caused the Civil War? That if the South had a choice between eliminating that tariff of eliminating slavery, they'd end the tariff?
You're retarded.
You should take your wank breaks in another thread.
Posted on 6/26/15 at 11:06 pm to TbirdSpur2010
quote:
I mean...was the Union supposed to just level the playing field or spot the rebels a couple of victories or something?
Absolutely not. Of course not.
Why would you think that?
Posted on 6/26/15 at 11:07 pm to Sleeping Tiger
quote:
It's okay to let it go, nobody should be clinging to these debates day in and day out.. but there is good reason to have a more full and truthful perspective on what happened.
The average southerner wasn't affected by the export tariff as much as they were slavery. How many Southern soldiers knew that the South was providing an inequitable share of federal revenue? Probably none of them. How many knew that the Midwestern sharecroppers and the Northern factory workers wanted to end slavery? Every last one of them.
Posted on 6/26/15 at 11:08 pm to Sleeping Tiger
quote:
You're retarded.
You should take your wank breaks in another thread.
Just because you're losing this argument that doesn't mean you need to start name calling.
Posted on 6/26/15 at 11:09 pm to Sleeping Tiger
quote:
Absolutely not. Of course not.
Why would you think that?
I'm just demonstrating the absurdity of even bringing up the mismatched sides of the war.
Yeah, the South put up a good fight. They were also fricking stupid for rushing to arms to start such a fight to begin with. You call it "honor," I call it "foolhardiness."
Posted on 6/26/15 at 11:14 pm to finestfirst79
quote:
The what??? This is an entirely new concept for me. In all wars the warring parties must be balanced, or by gum it just isn't fair?
No matter the "unfairness" of it all, the South got a butt-kicking. No arm-waving will change that.
I'm not a Civil War battle expert, but I'm pretty sure The South was doing well against a much larger army.
Abe had to print 400 million greenbacks through the treasury, interest free (against the will of the international bankers, who had an agenda to bankrupt the US, but that's a different layer of this all together). There was also the naval blockade which suffocated The South.
There's a lot more to the story than The South got whooped.
But I guess the real and full story is never of interest.
This post was edited on 6/26/15 at 11:15 pm
Posted on 6/26/15 at 11:17 pm to Sleeping Tiger
quote:
I'm not a Civil War battle expert, but I'm pretty sure The South was doing well against a much larger army.
Abe had to print 400 million greenbacks through the treasury, interest free (against the will of the international bankers, who had an agenda to bankrupt the US, but that's a different layer of this all together). There was also the naval blockade which suffocated The South.
There's a lot more to the story than The South got whooped.
But I guess the real and full story is never of interest.
You're not a Civil War expert either. You don't think the South seceded to preserve slavery.
Posted on 6/26/15 at 11:17 pm to TbirdSpur2010
quote:
I'm just demonstrating the absurdity of even bringing up the mismatched sides of the war.
Yeah, the South put up a good fight. They were also fricking stupid for rushing to arms to start such a fight to begin with. You call it "honor," I call it "foolhardiness."
The foolishness was already well on its way when Lee decided to decline the Union position to fight for the inevitable loser. That's what I called honor.
Was The South firing first foolish, yeah, probably. Sure.
But when looking at history it's relevant to know what happened -- to say The South got whooped, why try to remember it? That's a foolish statement because the full story paints a very different picture.
This post was edited on 6/26/15 at 11:18 pm
Posted on 6/26/15 at 11:20 pm to TeLeFaWx
quote:
The average southerner wasn't affected by the export tariff as much as they were slavery. How many Southern soldiers knew that the South was providing an inequitable share of federal revenue? Probably none of them
Something like 96% of The South didn't own slaves.
The entire south paid 90% of the federal revenue.
Your logic doesn't add up.
Posted on 6/26/15 at 11:24 pm to Sleeping Tiger
quote:
Something like 96% of The South didn't own slaves.
The entire south paid 90% of the federal revenue.
So if you didn't own a slave, what were you producing that fell under the export tariff? The inn keeper? The cobbler? The blacksmith? The same people that owned slaves were the ones paying the tariff. Your math doesn't add up.
Posted on 6/26/15 at 11:26 pm to Sleeping Tiger
quote:
There's a lot more to the story than The South got whooped.
Well... no. There is not, not when it comes to questions about the flag 150 years later. You point out "unfair" advantages the North (a.k.a. The United States) had as if that means they were somehow cheating. That's nonsense. The South performed very well early on, there's no doubt. And then the superior transportation, manufacturing, manpower, naval power of the North kicked the South's butt. Even in your skewed view, why do people want to fly that flag? I don't get it. You lost, and lost badly. Again, get over it.
Posted on 6/26/15 at 11:28 pm to finestfirst79
Why do an overwhelming amount of Aggies not associate the state of Texas with the Confederate States from 1861-1865?
Posted on 6/26/15 at 11:31 pm to finestfirst79
quote:
. You point out "unfair" advantages the North (a.k.a. The United States) had as if that means they were somehow cheating
That's absolutely not what I've said, or eluded to.
quote:
And then the superior transportation, manufacturing, manpower, naval power
As well as their interest free money printing machine, and immigrant soldier factory.
quote:
Even in your skewed view, why do people want to fly that flag? I don't get it. You lost, and lost badly. Again, get over it.
I don't fly the flag.
I am over 'it'.
I'm just a generalist observing what's going on.
I see everyone having all of these debates and strong opinions but the truth would alter the perception that creates those options and shapes those debates.
I'm defending the truth.
Posted on 6/26/15 at 11:32 pm to CapstoneGrad06
quote:
Why do an overwhelming amount of Aggies not associate the state of Texas with the Confederate States from 1861-1865?
I think a lot of those people moved down that way for the oil boom.
Page 4 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News