What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

April 9, 1865 Lee Surrenders to Grant

Zincwarrior

Platinum Member
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Nov 18, 2021
Messages
3,752
Reaction score
1,904
Points
918
View attachment 628097

157 years ago today the Army of Northern Virginia surrenders at Appomattox Court House.

"The next time we met was at Appomattox, and the first thing that General Grant said to me when we stepped inside, placing his hand in mine was, Pete, let us have another game of brag, to recall the days that were so pleasant. Great God! I thought to myself, how my heart swells out to such magnanimous touch of humanity. Why do men fight who were born to be brothers?"
-James Longstreet remembers General Grant.
Excellent post. Another Milestone in making the US the greatest nation on earth.
 

Zincwarrior

Platinum Member
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Nov 18, 2021
Messages
3,752
Reaction score
1,904
Points
918
Lincoln had nothing to do with it

The South overreacted to Lincoln’s election and seceded.
Lincoln was not going to end slavery. He couldn’t if he wanted to. The best Lincoln could have done was stop the expansion into new states

Slavery would have ended on its own over the next 20-30 years and we would have ended up with a version of second class citizenship status for blacks with no vote and limits to where they could live

Slave owners would have been compensated for their lost “property” and the south would have evolved.

Instead, slavery ended in four years and slave owners got nothing
At least we weren't Haiti.
 

gipper

Libertarian/Anarchist
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2011
Messages
50,745
Reaction score
21,380
Points
2,290
It might surprise some that Marx defended capitalist imperialist Republicans. But Marx was happy to see “backward” peoples trampled on in the cause of “progress”.

Quote: When the United States annexed California after the Mexican War, Marx sarcastically asked, “Is it a misfortune that magnificent California was seized from the lazy Mexicans who did not know what to do with it?” Engels shared Marx’s contempt for Mexicans, explaining: “In America we have witnessed the conquest of Mexico and have rejoiced at it. It is to the interest of its own development that Mexico will be placed under the tutelage of the United States.”

Yes. I believe Marx was a well known admirer of Dishonest Abe and vice versa.
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
247,641
Reaction score
69,180
Points
2,190

whitehall

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
56,669
Reaction score
19,646
Points
2,260
Location
Western Va.
Sherman was a realist who understood the horrors of war

His March to the Sea was a military masterpiece. Taking an entire Army and separating yourself from your supply lines. Few would risk it.

Sherman marched through the south living off of what he could capture. If he had met resistance, his army would have starved.

He crushed the South and ended the war
Sherman understood the horrors of war. As a matter of fact he viewed himself as God's "terrible swift sword". How many people burned to death in Atlanta when he ordered his arsonist troops to torch the city? We don't know because the history books don't dwell on the subject. General David "Black Dave" Hunter was another war criminal who pillaged and raped and murdered his way down the Shenandoah Valley during the Civil War on orders from the drunken commanding general.
 

whitehall

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
56,669
Reaction score
19,646
Points
2,260
Location
Western Va.
General Patton was relieved of duty during WW2 for slapping a hysterical enlisted man. A hard charging Marine commander in Afghanistan was relieved of duty and held for court martial for the crime of pissing on enemy dead bodies. Union General Sherman was a hero in the Civil War for ordering his men to burn Atlanta, Georgia to the ground. The media is outraged when enemy dead are disrespected today but historically we Americans were taught that the murder of fellow American civilians in the Civil War was a necessary tactic to overcome the evils of slavery. The hatred and disregard for the wholesale destruction of the South was further justified by Lincoln's assassination.
 
Last edited:

Zincwarrior

Platinum Member
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Nov 18, 2021
Messages
3,752
Reaction score
1,904
Points
918
What's cool is that no one outside of the Old South (excuses Texas) gives a flying fuck about the Civil War. Grow the fuck up already.
 

gipper

Libertarian/Anarchist
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2011
Messages
50,745
Reaction score
21,380
Points
2,290
What's cool is that no one outside of the Old South (excuses Texas) gives a flying fuck about the Civil War. Grow the fuck up already.
There is some truth to that. Many Americans know nothing of history, even recent history within their lifetimes. So naturally, they keep repeating the same mistakes of the past.
 

gipper

Libertarian/Anarchist
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2011
Messages
50,745
Reaction score
21,380
Points
2,290
I think if not for the Civil War, we would have been South Africa
Lol. We were South Africa BECAUSE of what dishonest Abe did. A century of repression of southern blacks should tell you something but alas, you’re too dumb.
 

there4eyeM

unlicensed metaphysician
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
18,256
Reaction score
3,833
Points
280
Lol. We were South Africa BECAUSE of what dishonest Abe did. A century of repression of southern blacks should tell you something but alas, you’re too dumb.
There was certainly a form of apartheid in large swaths of America, and that is still shameful. Laying that at the feet of Lincoln is hardly logical, any more than placing the responsibility for the Civil War there. That "honor" goes to those who regarded their fellow humans as animals of lesser status and violently insisted on maintaining inhumanity.
 

gipper

Libertarian/Anarchist
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2011
Messages
50,745
Reaction score
21,380
Points
2,290
There was certainly a form of apartheid in large swaths of America, and that is still shameful. Laying that at the feet of Lincoln is hardly logical, any more than placing the responsibility for the Civil War there. That "honor" goes to those who regarded their fellow humans as animals of lesser status and violently insisted on maintaining inhumanity.
Much of the blame lies with the war criminal Dishonest Abe.
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
247,641
Reaction score
69,180
Points
2,190

there4eyeM

unlicensed metaphysician
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
18,256
Reaction score
3,833
Points
280
Much of the blame lies with the war criminal Dishonest Abe.
Given the vile enemy he faced, no one could have successfully navigated that tempestuous period in much better fashion. That is the problem with "evil"; it is almost impossible to resist it without becoming tainted.
 

gipper

Libertarian/Anarchist
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2011
Messages
50,745
Reaction score
21,380
Points
2,290
Given the vile enemy he faced, no one could have successfully navigated that tempestuous period in much better fashion. That is the problem with "evil"; it is almost impossible to resist it without becoming tainted.
No. The entire Western Hemisphere outlawed slavery without bloodshed, except for…

Lincoln started the war to impose the tariff. He stated in his first inauguration he’d gladly ensconce slavery in the Constitution, if the South didn’t secede. He was an ardent racist even for his time. He hoped to deport all blacks in his second term. In that same speech, he said if you don’t pay the tax you die.
 

gipper

Libertarian/Anarchist
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2011
Messages
50,745
Reaction score
21,380
Points
2,290

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
247,641
Reaction score
69,180
Points
2,190
No. The entire Western Hemisphere outlawed slavery without bloodshed, except for…

Lincoln started the war to impose the tariff. He stated in his first inauguration he’d gladly ensconce slavery in the Constitution, if the South didn’t secede. He was an ardent racist even for his time. He hoped to deport all blacks in his second term. In that same speech, he said if you don’t pay the tax you die.
Kind of bizarre logic

The whole world abandoned slavery without bloodshed

The South refused to abandon the institution and was so obsessed with maintaining slavery that the created a nation dedicated to maintaining the institution forever.

Lincoln put an end to that
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
247,641
Reaction score
69,180
Points
2,190
Lincoln started the war to impose the tariff. He stated in his first inauguration he’d gladly ensconce slavery in the Constitution, if the South didn’t secede. He was an ardent racist even for his time. He hoped to deport all blacks in his second term. In that same speech, he said if you don’t pay the tax you die.

Lincoln was willing to allow slavery to preserve the Union. If the South was willing to rejoin the Union, he was going to let them.
Shipping former slaves to form a new nation was nothing new. It had already been tried in Liberia
Lincoln thought blacks would never be accepted in our society. He looked into the possibility of sending them to their own country and found it impossible to do with four million people.
 

gipper

Libertarian/Anarchist
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2011
Messages
50,745
Reaction score
21,380
Points
2,290
Kind of bizarre logic

The whole world abandoned slavery without bloodshed

The South refused to abandon the institution and was so obsessed with maintaining slavery that the created a nation dedicated to maintaining the institution forever.

Lincoln put an end to that
You don’t know what you’re talking about. The south never refused to abandon slavery. They were never asked to. Lincoln wanted them to have it for eternity. However he did say pay the tax or die and they refused. So, he killed them.
 

there4eyeM

unlicensed metaphysician
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
18,256
Reaction score
3,833
Points
280
No. The entire Western Hemisphere outlawed slavery without bloodshed, except for…

Lincoln started the war to impose the tariff. He stated in his first inauguration he’d gladly ensconce slavery in the Constitution, if the South didn’t secede. He was an ardent racist even for his time. He hoped to deport all blacks in his second term. In that same speech, he said if you don’t pay the tax you die.
The entire history of slavery is one of bloodshed. That is partly why it was ended. It also doesn't work in a capitalist system, and that aided its demise. There was further bloodshed in many places involved with terminating this horrible error. France, for example, ended slavery as a result of a bloody resolution only to re-instate it and have further bloodshed around the institution (remember Haiti?) and its end.
If we wish to ignore that attempting to abrogate the sworn obligation to Perpetual Union through violent rebellion took place, then we could blame the war on anything else. That treason did, however, take place and it necessitated all the violence that resulted. All guilt is on the perpetrators of that betrayal.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$45.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top