Recruiting Forum Football Talk II

Status
Not open for further replies.
#123,626
#123,626
Geaux_Vols said:
Should we extend the same benefit of the doubt to Nazi infantrymen who may or may not have personally cared about exterminating Jews?

Any how is it inaccurate? I posted several excerpts from the states secession letters explicitly saying the preservation of the institution of slavery was a root cause.
Click to expand...
I personally don't think your front line soldier was about preservation of slavery. They were about being called to defend their soil and to stand with their brothers. I am sure that there were some Union soldiers who supported the institution of slavery.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OrangenSC, jjvols and Ulysees E. McGill
#123,629
#123,629
drvenner said:
I personally don't think your front line soldier was about preservation of slavery. They were about being called to defend their soil and to stand with their brothers. I am sure that there were some Union soldiers who supported the institution of slavery.
Click to expand...

We tend to not make that distinction when talking about nazi infantrymen. Should we? I don’t think so.

And even so, there doesn’t seem to be a ton of documentation of active confederate soldiers / leaders that were anti-slavery. At the very least, to fight for the confederacy was a passive consent of slavery.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: CreiveHallVol, Devo182, titansvolsfaninga and 3 others
#123,630
#123,630
bignewt said:
Last thing I will say about it, as my father fought in Korea and Vietnam and he has plenty of tales of both, is that both were little more than remnants of colonialism, sticking our nose in where did not belong to prop up "freedom" against the evil "communism." Thousands and thousands of sons were drafted and died for that. Looking back on it now, does it matter that Vietnam is communist now? That there is still a 38th parallel? No. It does not. It was a shameful waste of American lives and those who sent our boys over there should have been brought up on war crimes. I'm glad that you can kill innocent people and our soldiers to help out "friends." I think it is one of the biggest blights on our history as a country myself and we continue to do it in the middle east. It's a damn shame.
Click to expand...
I think it matters to the South Koreans, and I totally disagree with you about that. I am not, nor ever will defend the Vietnam conflict.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bignewt
#123,631
#123,631
WBO said:
Growing up in the South in the 60's and being a bit of a military history buff, enhanced from going to HS at the now defunct Castle Heights Military Academy (Tennessee at one time had 10-12 military boarding schools, the anti-military aftermath of the Vietnam War killed them all), I always reveled in the South's resistance against superior military numbers and the skills of some of the Southern generals. To justify that, I agreed with the contention that it was a state's rights war triggered by economic issues. Otherwise, you're supporting the position that human beings can own, beat and even murder other human beings with impunity. If you believe that then there's not much humanity in you.

And then I read a book written by the editor of the Richmond Dispatch in 1866 (Edward Pollard) called the Southern History of the Civil War. It even contains editorials he wrote leading up to the war. The war from the Virginia perspective was all about the preservation of slavery. They wanted to maintain their cheap workforce and more importantly they were obsessed with the potential upheaval resulting from hundreds of thousands of former slaves being freed and who were going to be very angry over their prior imprisonment and treatment. He never writes about states rights, it's all about preservation of slavery.

Then the effect on me of taking the oath to preserve and protect the Constitution at my commissioning was very strong and for most of my adult life I've believed any Southern General who left active service to fight for the South should have been hung for treason after the War. There's no provision in the Constitution for a state to secede (there are some scholars who argue Texas could because it was an independent nation that merged into the US). So what the South did was mount a rebellion against the legitimate government of the US. The military and political leaders of that rebellion should have been hanged.

I know this is going to really light off some of you, so bring it on.
Click to expand...
WBO, I don't know where you're from or what town you reside, but growing up and being from Lebanon, I have lots of memories and several friends and acqaintances who attended CHMA back in the day. That said, I do have a question for you. Were you a cadet when the Allman brothers attended and do you know if the story of what they supposedly did re: a certain "package" sent to the school when they decided they weren't going back is true?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Geaux_Vols
#123,632
#123,632
WBO said:
Growing up in the South in the 60's and being a bit of a military history buff, enhanced from going to HS at the now defunct Castle Heights Military Academy (Tennessee at one time had 10-12 military boarding schools, the anti-military aftermath of the Vietnam War killed them all), I always reveled in the South's resistance against superior military numbers and the skills of some of the Southern generals. To justify that, I agreed with the contention that it was a state's rights war triggered by economic issues. Otherwise, you're supporting the position that human beings can own, beat and even murder other human beings with impunity. If you believe that then there's not much humanity in you.

And then I read a book written by the editor of the Richmond Dispatch in 1866 (Edward Pollard) called the Southern History of the Civil War. It even contains editorials he wrote leading up to the war. The war from the Virginia perspective was all about the preservation of slavery. They wanted to maintain their cheap workforce and more importantly they were obsessed with the potential upheaval resulting from hundreds of thousands of former slaves being freed and who were going to be very angry over their prior imprisonment and treatment. He never writes about states rights, it's all about preservation of slavery.

Then the effect on me of taking the oath to preserve and protect the Constitution at my commissioning was very strong and for most of my adult life I've believed any Southern General who left active service to fight for the South should have been hung for treason after the War. There's no provision in the Constitution for a state to secede (there are some scholars who argue Texas could because it was an independent nation that merged into the US). So what the South did was mount a rebellion against the legitimate government of the US. The military and political leaders of that rebellion should have been hanged.

I know this is going to really light off some of you, so bring it on.
Click to expand...

I agree with you on everything except the bold. The last thing the country needed was a big, public execution of southern leaders. The country needed to heal, and Lincoln knew that, which is why they didn't. They definitely DESERVED to be hung, but sometimes what is deserved doesn't line up with what's needed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CreiveHallVol, Big Orange#1 and Jimmy Football
#123,633
#123,633
drvenner said:
I personally don't think your front line soldier was about preservation of slavery. They were about being called to defend their soil and to stand with their brothers. I am sure that there were some Union soldiers who supported the institution of slavery.
Click to expand...

Your comment made me think of this...



Never underestimate the ability for young men to make questionable decisions for the sake of adventure.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CreiveHallVol and NashVolDavis
#123,637
#123,637
WBO said:
Growing up in the South in the 60's and being a bit of a military history buff, enhanced from going to HS at the now defunct Castle Heights Military Academy (Tennessee at one time had 10-12 military boarding schools, the anti-military aftermath of the Vietnam War killed them all), I always reveled in the South's resistance against superior military numbers and the skills of some of the Southern generals. To justify that, I agreed with the contention that it was a state's rights war triggered by economic issues. Otherwise, you're supporting the position that human beings can own, beat and even murder other human beings with impunity. If you believe that then there's not much humanity in you.

And then I read a book written by the editor of the Richmond Dispatch in 1866 (Edward Pollard) called the Southern History of the Civil War. It even contains editorials he wrote leading up to the war. The war from the Virginia perspective was all about the preservation of slavery. They wanted to maintain their cheap workforce and more importantly they were obsessed with the potential upheaval resulting from hundreds of thousands of former slaves being freed and who were going to be very angry over their prior imprisonment and treatment. He never writes about states rights, it's all about preservation of slavery.

Then the effect on me of taking the oath to preserve and protect the Constitution at my commissioning was very strong and for most of my adult life I've believed any Southern General who left active service to fight for the South should have been hung for treason after the War. There's no provision in the Constitution for a state to secede (there are some scholars who argue Texas could because it was an independent nation that merged into the US). So what the South did was mount a rebellion against the legitimate government of the US. The military and political leaders of that rebellion should have been hanged.

I know this is going to really light off some of you, so bring it on.
Click to expand...

Growing up in Lebanon, I remember Castle Heights closing and falling into disrepair. Sad from a community standpoint.

As to your points, I think the reasons varied by state. Where VA, SC and some others may have been exclusively cheap labor, other states faced much less pressure over slavery and much more pressure based on the myriad complicators of picking a side. I think it's too simplistic to say that any one issue was the genesis of the war.

However, with respect to your transition of feelings toward the Southern leaders, I would submit the following consideration. You make the point that the Constitution does not offer a clause for secession. While that is true, it clearly states that it only applies if the states involved voluntarily ratify it. Voluntarily joining could imply the ability to voluntarily exiting. Certainly there is no article or clause that stipulates against secession.

Certainly, secession brings with it a whole host of problems legally, logistically and from a national defense standpoint; but one could argue that Lincoln and the union were equally in violation by attempting to forceably prevent a state from seceding. What if Lincoln had allowed the split and then allowed nature to take it's course. Technological advances in farming would have probably facilitated the breakdown of slavery gradually over the next 20 years and with that barrier removed, would there have then been a "Great Reunion" around the turn of the 20th Century? I don't have a clue how it would have worked out. I do however think there are sufficient questions and consideration on both sides of the ledger that would prevent me personally from believing that either group should have been summarily executed for treason.

I am not convinced that we won't go down this road again but for the practical reasons of regional divergence rather than over something like slavery. The differences that make our politics so divisive could be largely neutralized by such a move if the logistics of trade and defense could be worked out under some sort of revised Articles of Confederation. Again, not a endorsement, but just an observation of where we may head one day during our kids or grandkids lifetimes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ulysees E. McGill
#123,639
#123,639
volatil said:
Are y’all ready for some good news?

Watch this video to explain exponential growth.



My hospital has plotted cases as this video suggests. Tennessee is tailing off.
Click to expand...

What about the rest of the country? The numbers that I see show we continue to report anywhere from 30 to 35,000 new cases a day, and Georgia has increased the last five days. It looks like we are starting to tail back off again from 1600 new cases three days ago to 600 and change yesterday. I am interested to see how many new cases are reported today here.
 
#123,640
#123,640
Geaux_Vols said:
We tend to not make that distinction when talking about nazi infantrymen. Should we? I don’t think so.

And even so, there doesn’t seem to be a ton of documentation of active confederate soldiers / leaders that were anti-slavery. At the very least, to fight for the confederacy was a passive consent of slavery.
Click to expand...
For some but not for all. I think the analogy to Nazi infantrymen has some merit but it's not black and white. There was also a ton of pressure on all able bodied young men to enlist. It's not so easy to resist when many of your neighbors and possibly family members would consider you cowardly if you don't fight. I think it's a reach to call it passive consent to slavery.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ulysees E. McGill, jjvols, CreiveHallVol and 2 others
#123,641
#123,641
nicksjuzunk said:
@WriterVol had a post up yonder and it got me thinking...

Who’s up for a Recruiting Forum Classic Game thread?

Establish the game, YouTube link and start time, then post in that thread as that game is going on. Could be a lot of fun
Click to expand...
Only if cat and Gucci participate and bitch about every negative play and then slowly slip into silence when we start whipping that azz.
 
  • Like
Reactions: barrylee, Brillovol, CreiveHallVol and 10 others
#123,642
#123,642
OGbabyaviVol said:
What about the rest of the country? The numbers that I see show we continue to report anywhere from 30 to 35,000 new cases a day, and Georgia has increased the last five days. It looks like we are starting to tail back off again from 1600 new cases three days ago to 600 and change yesterday. I am interested to see how many new cases are reported today here.
Click to expand...
Check your numbers. We are having way more than 30 cases a day.
 
#123,643
#123,643
drvenner said:
For some but not for all. I think the analogy to Nazi infantrymen has some merit but it's not black and white. There was also a ton of pressure on all able bodied young men to enlist. It's not so easy to resist when many of your neighbors and possibly family members would consider you cowardly if you don't fight. I think it's a reach to call it passive consent to slavery.
Click to expand...

I don’t disagree that there were other factors. There always are. I’m just pushing back a bit on the idea that slavery wasn’t at the forefront of the secession effort in general. It was not the only reason, no serious historian would say it was, but it is well documented to be a common thread among the states.
 
  • Like
Reactions: barrylee, CreiveHallVol, scvolfan7 and 1 other person
#123,644
#123,644
Crazy Ivan said:
You have to also consider that Wilson was a Progressive and if the US did not enter the war then the US might not have a place at the peace talks table, which would mean his goals for a world league (the League of Nations) and spreading democracy globally could not be realized.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. I deleted a line from my post because I didn’t want to appear to be discounting the value of the lives lost, but Wilson absolutely wanted a seat at the table, and at that late stage of the war, it was a minimal investment for the US.

He had some grand ideas, but when those ideas are combined with a lack of appreciation for historic conflicts between cultures, that’s a recipe for failure.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jimmy Football
#123,646
#123,646
Just saw Calipari giving an interview on tv about his facebook program to raise money for food banks, etc. I didn't know he had grown a full beard that is almost exclusively gray. I almost didn't recognize him.
 
#123,649
#123,649
franklinpence said:
Absolutely. I deleted a line from my post because I didn’t want to appear to be discounting the value of the lives lost, but Wilson absolutely wanted a seat at the table, and at that late stage of the war, it was a minimal investment for the US.

He had some grand ideas, but when those ideas are combined with a lack of appreciation for historic conflicts between cultures, that’s a recipe for failure.
Click to expand...

You’ve been dead-on with the WWI analysis.
 
  • Like
Reactions: franklinpence
#123,650
#123,650
Geaux_Vols said:
Should we extend the same benefit of the doubt to Nazi infantrymen who may or may not have personally cared about exterminating Jews?

Any how is it inaccurate? I posted several excerpts from the states secession letters explicitly saying the preservation of the institution of slavery was a root cause.
Click to expand...

It was a root cause in the Deep South (not the Upper South), but that doesn't mean it was the reason those that joined the Confederate armies automatically did so because of slavery, as most Southerners weren't slaveowners. Granted, there is little doubt some, maybe a majority, non-slaveowners supported slavery because they hoped one day to be slaveowners themselves, but from what we can know from personal diaries, letters to families, etc., is that almost all supported their state first and foremost, and their state's right to secede. You also have to remember that the Deep South states had to promote the idea of war to their respective citizens, same as in modern times, and southern papers in early 1861 were filled with calls to arms to protect the South from an invasion by the North, who, the papers said ,were intent on denying southern states their rights. It was a strong call to men who viewed their state as first and foremost behind God and family. It's hard to know how many that joined had any real inkling why their state seceded. Living on small, isolated farms, the majority of these yeoman farmers didn't have regular access to newspapers, and would likely be unable to read a paper if they had access. Many knew nothing of what was going on until a representative of the new formed CSA rode up and told them their state was facing a northern invasion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ulysees E. McGill, jjvols, OrangenSC and 3 others
New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement



Back
Top