Recruiting Forum Football Talk II

Status
Not open for further replies.
#123,302
#123,302
BaldBiker said:
That is a whole new discussion. "They" as you say, IMO, for the most part did not fight to keep slavery. They fought for states rights. It was about 80 years removed from our country actually gaining independence. That independence was started because 13 "states" wanted to be independent of English monarchy. They chose to fight together for that independence. The original premise was for the independent states to be under one governance to make sure that happened.
Click to expand...
People tend to forget about the whole "independent states" concept simply because all they've ever known is a federal government that holds more power than it should. I think(hope) we al would agree that slavery was wrong, but slavery wasn't the only motivation. It wasn't even the primary motivation though history has been rewritten to promote it as such. States' rights and how federal government tried to limit them was huge. The purpose was never to shed the shackles of the monarchy to simply don another set that left states beholden to a federal government. At least not IMO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HeadVol77, InVOLuntary, jjvols and 9 others
#123,306
#123,306
BaldBiker said:
Agree. I think one of Lee's greatest mistake at Gettysburg was to not trust Longstreet enough. Longstreet was a great general in his own right. He wasn't quite as good as Jackson IMO, but was still a great general. Lee just didn't feel the same way about Longstreet as he did Jackson. Through the years have come to believe it may have been for religious reasons.
Click to expand...

Jackson's aggressive philosophy was more in line with what Lee believed, while Longstreet was more deliberate, more defensive-minded.

I think it was good for Lee to have men with both philosophies around him, but unfortunately for Lee and his army, at the critical moment Lee couldn't bring himself to consider anything other than a full frontal assault.
 
  • Like
Reactions: drvenner and BaldBiker
#123,307
#123,307
Weezer said:
People tend to forget about the whole "independent states" concept simply because all they've ever known is a federal government that holds more power than it should. I think(hope) we al would agree that slavery was wrong, but slavery wasn't the only motivation. It wasn't even the primary motivation though history has been rewritten to promote it as such. States' rights and how federal government tried to limit them was huge. The purpose was never to shed the shackles of the monarchy to simply don another set that left states beholden to a federal government. At least not IMO.
Click to expand...
Amen.

I can't even imagine me living in a Confederate States of America. Don't want to. But...knowing history...the real history...I know that what is being fed to young people today, and the truth, are not the same. Slavery was not as large of an issue for anyone, North or South, as States rights. The industrialized north wanted more federal rule. The Southern states didn't. Slavery...outside of the fanatics like John Brown...weren't even an issue in the North until 1863.

Annnnd...after the Civil War...most Northerners wanted freed slaves to stay in the South. Slavery was only an issue for most Northerners, if it won the war.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HeadVol77, jjvols, Brillovol and 11 others
#123,308
#123,308
Weezer said:
People tend to forget about the whole "independent states" concept simply because all they've ever known is a federal government that holds more power than it should. I think(hope) we al would agree that slavery was wrong, but slavery wasn't the only motivation. It wasn't even the primary motivation though history has been rewritten to promote it as such. States' rights and how federal government tried to limit them was huge. The purpose was never to shed the shackles of the monarchy to simply don another set that left states beholden to a federal government. At least not IMO.
Click to expand...
This country was founded on a whole lot different concepts than what most people care to remember...or are taught.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brillovol, Ulysees E. McGill, VOLSONLY and 4 others
#123,312
#123,312
BaldBiker said:
This country was founded on a whole lot different concepts than what most people care to remember...or are taught.
Click to expand...
Sadly, the further we get from the founding of our nation, the more people who are content to be sheep. They're okay with government making decisions our FFs fought to make for themselves. That's not to say we don't need government, but government is supposed to work for citizens and not the other way around.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jjvols, Brillovol, Ulysees E. McGill and 7 others
#123,316
#123,316
BaldBiker said:
This country was founded on a whole lot different concepts than what most people care to remember...or are taught.
Click to expand...
The articles of confederation are a lot closer to what we should have as a nation. The federal government learned way back that centralization leads to more money, more power and more bureaucracy for those that run it. It's a monster that is never full.

And btw gay isn't PC anymore ya geezer, it's heterosexually challenged.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BaldBiker
#123,317
#123,317
Geaux_Vols said:
I can’t believe we were able to discuss a historical event like adults for that long before someone had to make it about statues. Disappointing. I was enjoying that.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, we can continue that discussion because it is interesting to me as well. But after reading and reminiscing about those great men and seeing many of the great landmarks that are gone firsthand, I can't help but feel sad in a way. And heck, Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. Do we need to remove the Jefferson Memorial? Okay. I'll get off my soapbox.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ulysees E. McGill
#123,319
#123,319
bignewt said:
The articles of confederation are a lot closer to what we should have as a nation. The federal government learned way back that centralization leads to more money, more power and more bureaucracy for those that run it. It's a monster that is never full.

And btw gay isn't PC anymore ya geezer, it's heterosexually challenged.
Click to expand...
I love you Newt.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bignewt
#123,322
#123,322
bignewt said:
The articles of confederation are a lot closer to what we should have as a nation. The federal government learned way back that centralization leads to more money, more power and more bureaucracy for those that run it. It's a monster that is never full.

And btw gay isn't PC anymore ya geezer, it's heterosexually challenged.
Click to expand...
How about vagina adverse? Does that work?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brillovol, Ulysees E. McGill, gainesvol82 and 2 others
#123,324
#123,324
BaldBiker said:
That is a whole new discussion. "They" as you say, IMO, for the most part did not fight to keep slavery. They fought for states rights. It was about 80 years removed from our country actually gaining independence. That independence was started because 13 "states" wanted to be independent of English monarchy. They chose to fight together for that independence. The original premise was for the independent states to be under one governance to make sure that happened.
Click to expand...

It is just about impossible to say what all southerners were fighting for. Certainly for most of the 1850s the biggest debates in Congress were over slavery, not necessarily slavery in the South, as Lincoln and most of the Republicans who were former Whigs believed that slavery where it existed was protected by the Constitution. Former abolitionists in the party certainly did attack slavery in the south, but while loud, they were a minority. But the big fight was over the western territories, and would they come in as free or slave states.

To pro-slavery southerners, the concern was that if the territories were to become free states, there was the possibility that at some point, those opposed to slavery could have enough free states to amend the Constitution and abolish slavery. The 7 Deep South states that seceded after Lincoln was elected pretty much made it clear in their ordinances of secession that protecting their right to slavery was their main issue. Of course that doesn't mean all citizens in those states supported slavery or secession, as most of those states had areas here in there that not only did not support slavery, but did not support secession.

For the 4 Upper South states - TN, Ark, NC, and VA - it was different. In early resolutions, the citizens of those states rejected secession several votes. It was not until Lincoln called for 75000 volunteers that those 4 states voted to secede, doing so because they believed in a state's right to secede, so preserving slavery was not the issue for those states.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BlackLabelVols, HeadVol77, Buddy’s Bandit and 6 others
#123,325
#123,325
VolGee4 said:
I am a freaking criminal defense attorney, and I have no outrage about personal liberties right now. To me, it’s nonsense. But thank goodness people can have their own opinion. People are just pissed because they have to show some discipline.
Click to expand...

That's not entirely true.

You forgot boredom and bank accounts 😅

Speaking of boredom and only because I've seen the Franklin quote 3 times now, it was originally from a 1755 letter. The assembly needed tax dollars to fight murderers in rural areas. The The Governor wanted to exempt one of the landowners whose family got him appointed before signing a bill to provide money for defense.

Franklin meant the freedom to reserve the right to impose taxes, for the purpose of protecting the populace.
So ironically, he was talking about Gov't not giving up it's right to impose law equally, in trade for immediate relief.

The 2nd time referenced was an impasse with parliament for the colonies to protect themselves.
*Both were "essential freedoms" of the governing bodies to protect the people how they deemed necessary.
 
New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.

VN Store



Back
Top