• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Declaring War on Sepia5's signature

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
BigWoof31;1412089; said:
Absolutely incorrect. Clearly you've never been to Charleston or New Orleans
Click to expand...

Right. That's why the great pizza debate is between those two cities and not...say...NY and Chicago.

Ohio has some of the best pizza in the world also. I consider myself a connoisseur.
 
Upvote 0
BuckeyeMafia;1411433; said:
When did Pete Wentz become relevant to the world at all? And why here?
Click to expand...

He has been relevant since long before his birth. There is no wrong thread for a big ass picture of Pete Wentz.
 
Upvote 0
Gatorubet;1410785; said:
Mucky, we were talking the right of any state to secede for any reason under the same principles that gave the sovereign state the right to join the Union in the first place.
Click to expand...

No we were talking about General William Tecumseh Sherman.

I have no problem with a State's right to secede (I don't think there is much doubt that I'm a much stronger State's rights supporter than you are), that's irrelevant.

Keep in mind that AFAIC the Confederate States were and still are a hostile foreign power.

Sherman should have broken them completely, held human right's trials for slave owners, had them summarily shot and handed over their land to the slaves.

It would have saved us 100+ years of constant whinging from both groups.
 
Upvote 0
Gatorubet;1410785; said:
Mucky, we were talking the right of any state to secede for any reason under the same principles that gave the sovereign state the right to join the Union in the first place.
Click to expand...

Muck;1413137; said:
No we were talking about General William Tecumseh Sherman.

I have no problem with a State's right to secede (I don't think there is much doubt that I'm a much stronger State's rights supporter than you are), that's irrelevant.
Click to expand...

No, Muck. Actually, you were talking about "traitors", and so I brought up the legality of the right to secede - which you now say you have no problem with. If you mean it, then that would eliminate the "traitors" deal entirely and would appear to contradict your prior statement.

Muck;1413137; said:
Keep in mind that AFAIC the Confederate States were and still are a hostile foreign power.
Click to expand...

Hostile foreign power? Yep, you betcha. Hostile, with abominable slavery practices, and a huge threat to future Union security. They wanted to play Great Britain and France against you guys. Hell, had that shell from the Alabama that landed in the Kearsarge's powder room not been a dud, who knows what might have happened foreign politics PR wise? :biggrin: "Traitors"? Not so much.

Muck;1413137; said:
Sherman should have broken them completely, held human right's trials for slave owners, had them summarily shot and handed over their land to the slaves.

It would have saved us 100+ years of constant whinging from both groups.
Click to expand...

That is just silly. Most Northerners did not want slaves up North, they held them to be social inferiors not worthy of the same rights as white citizens up North, even if they were happy to inflict them on the south. And the many draft riots where Northerners ran around killing and hanging blacks for being the cause of the war shows that the concept of a Human Rights trial would have been laughable to them. Sherman did not think them social or political equals, and did not favor the right of negor sufferage.

Hell, even forty years later General "Black Jack" Pershing was actually called "****** Jack" because he had commanded black troops - and they only cleaned up and changed his actual Army nickname for the press in WWI.

As discomforting as it is now, the racial views that we currently hold were not the views of our gg grandparents generation. They might not have wanted to see Uncle Tom whipped, but they sure as hell did not want to work, socialize or live with or around freed slaves (save an enlightened educated few, the Quakers, and the brave men and women working for the Freedmen's Bureau under Reconstruction)
 
Upvote 0
Muck;1413137; said:
Sherman should have broken them completely, held human right's trials for slave owners, had them summarily shot and handed over their land to the slaves.
Click to expand...

Actually, Sherman did issue a field order handing over thousands and thousands of fertile acres along the South Carolina-Georgia oceanfront to newly freed slaves in 40-acre plots, along with government leased mules. Unfortunately, after Lincoln's assasination, Johnson revoked the field order and actually used Union solders to evict blacks from the land and then handed it back over to Southern white plantation owners. Hence the saying often used by proponents of African American reparations of some sort, "40 acres and a mule." How much easier could progress towards racial equality have been had Lincoln not been assassinated? Johnson was a disaster.

By the way, the one state that, from its inception, outlawed slavery? Ohio. WE ARE AWESOME! BURN!!!11!!1! BURN, GEORGIA!!!11!!1!!!
 
Upvote 0
Gatorubet;1413197; said:
No, Muck. Actually, you were talking about "traitors", and so I brought up the legality of the right to secede - which you now say you have no problem with. If you mean it, then that would eliminate the "traitors" deal entirely and would appear to contradict your prior statement.
Click to expand...


The two are not mutually exclusive.

That is just silly. Most Northerners did not want slaves up North, they held them to be social inferiors not worthy of the same rights as white citizens up North, even if they were happy to inflict them on the south. And the many draft riots where Northerners ran around killing and hanging blacks for being the cause of the war shows that the concept of a Human Rights trial would have been laughable to them. Sherman did not think them social or political equals, and did not favor the right of negor sufferage.

Hell, even forty years later General "Black Jack" Pershing was actually called "****** Jack" because he had commanded black troops - and they only cleaned up and changed his actual Army nickname for the press in WWI.

As discomforting as it is now, the racial views that we currently hold were not the views of our gg grandparents generation. They might not have wanted to see Uncle Tom whipped, but they sure as hell did not want to work, socialize or live with or around freed slaves (save an enlightened educated few, the Quakers, and the brave men and women working for the Freedmen's Bureau under Reconstruction) Today 12:36 PM
Click to expand...

Thanks for the HS civics lecture. It's cute and all but mostly irrelevant to the point. Whether you want to admit it or not the vast majority of the issues that exacerbated intolerance towards blacks were disproportionately engendered in the south long after the civil war.

Yankees didn't particularly care for or want to associated with Italians, Irish, Asians or Eastern Europeans either. They certainly weren't saints.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top