Recruiting Forum Football Talk II

[Chuckie]

...this is the place where there used to be about 37 paragraphs...

At any rate, long story short, the main Republican platform in 1860 was that slavery would not be allowed into the territories. Many, if not most, in the party believed that this would cause the slow strangulation of slavery where it existed, something pro-slavers in the South also feared, hence their secession following his election.

Damn, I’d hate to see the long story...

 

[Jimmy Football]

Damn, I’d hate to see the long story...

Well, more books have been written in this country about the Civil War than any other subject, so it’s out there.

 

[Crazy Ivan]

Damn, I’d hate to see the long story...

You would have to sit in one of the lectures for that.

 

[Bassmaster_Vol]

Only of golf started in 1995

82 wins. “Tiger proofed” courses. Jack was great but come on. Nobody has ever played the game the way Tiger did in his prime. Just a fact

 

[Bassmaster_Vol]

Lol. It’s the most debated thing in golf.

True. But shouldn’t be.

 

[Geaux_Vols]

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.

my point really is less concerned with the individual mindsets of those that joined the confederacy vs the reason the confederacy was a thing to begin with, but i can agree that what you say was no doubt commonplace. if we're discussing why the war was a war, we can't nonchalantly glaze over slavery, whether its being framed as a religiously-ordained institution or an economic tool. it was a primary cause. and whether the small-time farmers who enlisted in 1861 knew it at the time or not, they almost certainly must have come to learn it over time.

re: the argument that non-slave owners wouldn't have been concerned with the institution of slavery, we have to be aware that even to this day, large factions of people support legislation aimed at helping people above them in the socioeconomic ladder and do very little for themselves (trickle-down economics). The "whats best for us will done day be best for you" sermon is as old as civilized society itself.

 

[SpringBokVol]

I can't believe there is a debate about this.

Tiger is the GOAT

Not even close.

 

[Jimmy Football]

82 wins. “Tiger proofed” courses. Jack was great but come on. Nobody has ever played the game the way Tiger did in his prime. Just a fact

Be honest with me, how many pre-1997 golf tournaments have you watched?

 

[bignewt]

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.

Only difference between the two was one wound up a stalemate and one was a loss. Both were ill advised causes to die for.

 

[Weezer]

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.

Doesn't light me off, but I would contend you're wrong in some of your assumptions. The Constitution was written "in order to form a more perfect Union". The original states united for the benefit of all. Whether or not it was written into the Constitution, I think there was an implicit understanding that states had the freedom to leave the Union if they felt their needs weren't being met. When the Constitution was first presented, it took nine states ratifying it for it to become effective, and any state that did not ratify it would not be part of this new union. Joining was a choice, which implies to me that leaving was a choice as well. The federal government was not designed to be a new monarchy, the very thing our FFs fought against. JMO, but that idea was born with Lincoln and the Civil War, and cemented with all the programs of FDR. Somewhere along the way of our history, the importance of state's rights, which were considered so valuable by our FFs, was forgotten. When the Constitutional Congress was formed, it involved representatives from every state, arguing for the rights of their states.

As for the Civil War being all about slavery, slavery was a big part, just not the only part. Not every Southerner who fought was a slave owner. Many Southerners simply fought for their homes. Many didn't believe the federal government had the right to dictate to them what was legal or illegal, be it slavery or anything else. Slavery was an evil institution, as I have previously stated, so understand my next comparison is about the idea of state rights, and not an actual comparison with slavery. Certain states have legalized marijuana despite it being illegal at the federal level. Do they have that right? Should they have that right? Or should federal law trump all and those states be punished? Again, not comparing slavery and legalized marijuana, just the idea that states should be allowed to make their own decisions.

I will never defend slavery. I'm glad it ended, even if it took a war to do it. But should the federal government be allowed to dictate to states what they can or cannot do? That was a huge part of the Civil War. Yes, it involved slavery, but overall, it was about whether or not the federal government had the right to force states into compliance. I don't think the Constitution allows for that, but Lincoln did it any way. This goes beyond slavery, but slavery always gets the headline, causing people to ignore all the underlying currents that were there.

 

[HankHill]

I think early signing day will have to be moved or canceled

They need to do away with that anyway. There’s a proposal right now that i would be all for and coaches would be too....

Basically it’s:

-Eliminate Early signing day.
-Eliminate spring practice.
-One signing day inApril so spring break can be utilized for travel days with recruits.
- Move “spring practice” to July so all incoming freshman can participate and enroll in summer mini term.
- each team is allowed 1 exhibition / joint practice with a non conference opponent. So say this year we would host say Louisville and next would travel to them.

 

[Weezer]

No, the war was not about just one thing. But one thing loomed larger and more consistently across the secession statements from the states themselves:

South Carolina


Mississippi


Louisiana


Alabama


Texas


The "States Rights" motive was a branding exercise to make the South's position more palatable when seeking material assistance from France and other European countries. The first people to be confused by the new line were Southerners themselves.

A Richmond newspaper:
"‘The people of the South are not fighting for slavery but for independence.’ Let us look into this matter. It is an easy task, we think, to show up this new-fangled heresy — a heresy calculated to do us no good, for it cannot deceive foreign statesmen nor peoples, nor mislead any one here nor in Yankeeland. . . Our doctrine is this: WE ARE FIGHTING FOR INDEPENDENCE THAT OUR GREAT AND NECESSARY DOMESTIC INSTITUTION OF SLAVERY SHALL BE PRESERVED, and for the preservation of other institutions of which slavery is the groundwork."

More succinctly, Confederate army cavalry battalion commander John S Mosby after the war:
"I’ve never heard of any other cause than slavery.”

See my previous response to WBO. People fought for different reasons. You can choose to believe that or not. Ultimately, imo, it was about the rights of states to make their own choices. In this case, slavery was the primary choice stated, but it was more than that. The federal government was not meant to be a dictatorship interfering with a state's right to self govern.

 

[Bassmaster_Vol]

Be honest with me, how many pre-1997 golf tournaments have you watched?

Well considering in 1997 I was 11, not many. But I have watched a lot of Jack’s highlights and stuff. But just looking at the numbers, no one has done what Tiger has done and against the competition that Tiger has done it against. I don’t think it’s even arguable. If Tiger hadn’t self destructed personally who knows how many more he’d have. He still might pass Jack in majors even after all the crap he went through.

 

[KokoBVol]

They need to do away with that anyway. There’s a proposal right now that i would be all for and coaches would be too....

Basically it’s:

-Eliminate Early signing day.
-Eliminate spring practice.
-One signing day inApril so spring break can be utilized for travel days with recruits.
- Move “spring practice” to July so all incoming freshman can participate and enroll in summer mini term.
- each team is allowed 1 exhibition / joint practice with a non conference opponent. So say this year we would host say Louisville and next would travel to them.

My one question about this is, wouldn't "spring practice" in July just role right into the start of fall camp in August? Or would they shorten the July practices?

 

[Geaux_Vols]

See my previous response to WBO. People fought for different reasons. You can choose to believe that or not. Ultimately, imo, it was about the rights of states to make their own choices. In this case, slavery was the primary choice stated, but it was more than that. The federal government was not meant to be a dictatorship interfering with a state's right to self govern.

I believe it, I’ve stated that a couple times in this thread. My aim is to remove the “IMO” from the discussion and lean on what we can prove from documentation. Overwhelmingly, it proves slavery was a primary cause and catalyst of the Civil War.

 

[Jimmy Football]

Well considering in 1997 I was 11, not many. But I have watched a lot of Jack’s highlights and stuff. But just looking at the numbers, no one has done what Tiger has done and against the competition that Tiger has done it against. I don’t think it’s even arguable. If Tiger hadn’t self destructed personally who knows how many more he’d have. He still might pass Jack in majors even after all the crap he went through.

Love ya Bass, but this is recency bias.

Most of The Masters since 1970 are on YouTube. I swear to you that they played good golf before the late 90s.

 

[Weezer]

I believe it, I’ve stated that a couple times in this thread. My aim is to remove the “IMO” from the discussion and lean on what we can prove from documentation. Overwhelmingly, it proves slavery was a primary cause and catalyst of the Civil War.

But even slavery was about a state's right to choose. I hate saying that, but it's true. I'm glad slavery was abolished, and hate that it sounds like I'm trying to defend it. I'm not. But a state's right to self govern was also front and center.

 

[Bassmaster_Vol]

Love ya Bass, but this is recency bias.

Most of The Masters since 1970 are on YouTube. I swear to you that they played good golf before the late 90s.

So anytime we acknowledge that someone is the greatest ever it’s recency bias? My dad watched Jack’s career and believes Tiger is the greatest. The opposite also happens. People are so attached to the past they can’t acknowledge that anyone younger is better. There are people who still believe that Babe Ruth is the best baseball player ever. He’s not. That’s what is happening here.

 

[Geaux_Vols]

But even slavery was about a state's right to choose. I hate saying that, but it's true. I'm glad slavery was abolished, and hate that it sounds like I'm trying to defend it. I'm not. But a state's right to self govern was also front and center.

Can you cite another thing states wanted to right to choose over so strongly they tried to secede?

 

[The Dog]

Well considering in 1997 I was 11, not many. But I have watched a lot of Jack’s highlights and stuff. But just looking at the numbers, no one has done what Tiger has done and against the competition that Tiger has done it against. I don’t think it’s even arguable. If Tiger hadn’t self destructed personally who knows how many more he’d have. He still might pass Jack in majors even after all the crap he went through.

Competition? Jack had to beat guys like Arnold Palmer, Tom Watson, Lee Trevino and Gary Player, 5 of the greatest golfers of all time. Woods never really had any competition early in his career. Mickelson was/is Tiger's main rival, I guess ? So, comp favors Jack, imo. Woods brought all that crap on himself, should have kept it in his pants or not marry. Woods won't catch Jack, now. With all that said, I would still say Woods is the GOAT, but it's definitely debatable

 

[TrippieRedd]

Besides WR's, who tf does Florida have that will beat us this upcoming season?

Offense
Kyle Trask - QB
Damien Pierce - RB
Trevon Grimes - WR
Jacob Copeland - WR
Kadarius Toney - WR
Kyle Pitts - TE
Their O-line will be alright


Defense
Zach Carter - DL
Dunlap Jr - DL
Campbell - DL
Cox Jr. - Buck
Houston - ILB
Miller - ILB
Wilson - Star
Jaydon Hill/ Kaiir Elam - CB
Dean - CB
Stiner - S
Stewart - S

I don't see a strong team. Prove me wrong.

 

[MrVolton]

Doesn't light me off, but I would contend you're wrong in some of your assumptions. The Constitution was written "in order to form a more perfect Union". The original states united for the benefit of all. Whether or not it was written into the Constitution, I think there was an implicit understanding that states had the freedom to leave the Union if they felt their needs weren't being met. When the Constitution was first presented, it took nine states ratifying it for it to become effective, and any state that did not ratify it would not be part of this new union. Joining was a choice, which implies to me that leaving was a choice as well. The federal government was not designed to be a new monarchy, the very thing our FFs fought against. JMO, but that idea was born with Lincoln and the Civil War, and cemented with all the programs of FDR. Somewhere along the way of our history, the importance of state's rights, which were considered so valuable by our FFs, was forgotten. When the Constitutional Congress was formed, it involved representatives from every state, arguing for the rights of their states.

As for the Civil War being all about slavery, slavery was a big part, just not the only part. Not every Southerner who fought was a slave owner. Many Southerners simply fought for their homes. Many didn't believe the federal government had the right to dictate to them what was legal or illegal, be it slavery or anything else. Slavery was an evil institution, as I have previously stated, so understand my next comparison is about the idea of state rights, and not an actual comparison with slavery. Certain states have legalized marijuana despite it being illegal at the federal level. Do they have that right? Should they have that right? Or should federal law trump all and those states be punished? Again, not comparing slavery and legalized marijuana, just the idea that states should be allowed to make their own decisions.

I will never defend slavery. I'm glad it ended, even if it took a war to do it. But should the federal government be allowed to dictate to states what they can or cannot do? That was a huge part of the Civil War. Yes, it involved slavery, but overall, it was about whether or not the federal government had the right to force states into compliance. I don't think the Constitution allows for that, but Lincoln did it any way. This goes beyond slavery, but slavery always gets the headline, causing people to ignore all the underlying currents that were there.

As with most major historical events, there are almost always multiple complex causes. But if you take slavery out of the equation, it’s doubtful that the Civil War ever would have happened.

 

[Jimmy Football]

So anytime we acknowledge that someone is the greatest ever it’s recency bias? My dad watched Jack’s career and believes Tiger is the greatest. The opposite also happens. People are so attached to the past they can’t acknowledge that anyone younger is better. There are people who still believe that Babe Ruth is the best baseball player ever. He’s not. That’s what is happening here.

Well , your dad may be right. But you need to expose yourself to more pre-Tiger golf before you personally can make the “not even debatable” judgment. You’re essentially just assuming that Tiger is better.

 

[Crazy Ivan]

my point really is less concerned with the individual mindsets of those that joined the confederacy vs the reason the confederacy was a thing to begin with, but i can agree that what you say was no doubt commonplace. if we're discussing why the war was a war, we can't nonchalantly glaze over slavery, whether its being framed as a religiously-ordained institution or an economic tool. it was a primary cause. and whether the small-time farmers who enlisted in 1861 knew it at the time or not, they almost certainly must have come to learn it over time.

re: the argument that non-slave owners wouldn't have been concerned with the institution of slavery, we have to be aware that even to this day, large factions of people support legislation aimed at helping people above them in the socioeconomic ladder and do very little for themselves (trickle-down economics). The "whats best for us will done day be best for you" sermon is as old as civilized society itself.

Nor should we glaze it over because it was a key issue, probably The key issue. My response was really only in regard to the Clint Smith tweet re: Frederick Douglas that you posted. While I agree with Douglas that there was an attempt in the South after the war to re-define the war as the noble Lost Cause, to me discounting that notion doesn't also mean that Lee and his army did not consider their fight for the preservation of Virginia, or whatever state they came from, as a noble cause.

Lee himself wrote even before the war that he did not agree with slavery and thought it would eventually end, but like most everyone else, he had grown up with it being a part of the way of life in the South. And he, like the majority of Virginians, when they finally did support secession, it was not over slavery, but over a state's right to own slaves if it chose to, or secede if it chose to. So while Lee found slavery distasteful, he found even more distasteful the idea of what he considered the federal government over-reaching its constitutional powers.

If we are going to condemn Lee, then we can also have to condemn the Founding Fathers, who knowingly protected slavery in the Constitution. Or, like Lee, we can examine their actions through the lens of their time, not through the lens we get to look back through today. And while protecting slavery was distasteful to them, the alternative, the southern states refusal to sign and ratify the Constitution, was even more problematic, so they made the compromise because they believed ratification of the Constitution was critical to the young nation. And I think with Southerners like Lee we have to apply the same understanding; worry about slavery down the road but deal with the more immediate issue now, which was to protect what he felt was protected rights of states.

 

[Bassmaster_Vol]

Well , your dad may be right. But you need to expose yourself to more pre-Tiger golf before you personally can make the “not even debatable” judgment. You’re essentially just assuming that Tiger is better.

Because he is. I don’t have to go back and watch babe Ruth games to know that he wasnt better than mike trout