Someone calls out the SEC perception machine

[Rondogg]

In my opinion the North won the war because of 2 key advantages: Rails and Industry. The North had huge advantages in the amount of railroads and the industries to feed the war machine. The South basically had nothing. Their biggest city was Charleston, iirc.

I also don't think the war was about slavery for most Northern troops. Lincoln would never have been able to raise an army if he told the Northern states he was doing it to free the slaves. White people would have just stayed home, why free blacks if they were just going to come up north and take their jobs?

Luckily, in the end, Lincoln pulled out the Gettysburgh Address...

 

[Jax Husky]

Show me a conference that has two teams regularly go undefeated or losing only to the other and I'll show you a conference with some pretty crappy teams.

Taking nothing away from the top teams, they're good. But, not so good that they are the defacto best teams in the country.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2

I don't know that it is "de facto" when the conference is 12-4 in BCS games since 2003. 1 of those 4 losses was LSU losing to another SEC team, so really the conference is 11-3. They won 5 straight title games against other conferences, with only 1 of those (Auburn over Oregon) even being close. I'd say they've earned the right to the benefit of the doubt. Again, I agree that the depth of the conference is overrated, but I don't see how anyone can argue the strength of the top 1-2 teams in the SEC over the last 10 years.

The SEC high profile OOC games from last year:
Arkansas - Beat Texas A&M and Kansas St.
LSU - Beat the heck out of Oregon and West Virginia
Alabama - Beat Penn St.
South Carolina - Beat one of the better Clemson teams of the last decade, and handily beat Nebraska in their Bowl game
Georgia - Beat Georgia Tech, lost to Boise St. and Michigan St.
Florida (the worst UF team in a while - Lost to FSU, beat Ohio St.
Auburn - Lost to Clemson, beat Virginia

That is a pretty strong OOC, especially from the Top 3 in the conference.

 

[uc1974]

General Early is buried next to my maternal grandparents and other ancestors in Spring Hill Cemetery in Lynchburg. He was a bit of a nut case but a fine general. He has a tasteful monument reflective of the period. Those of you who have drunk the PC Kool-Aid about the causes of the Civil War are incorrect. Slavery existed because it was economical and for no other reason. It was replaced by slavery light, with Northern OK, which existed until the 1960's. Slavery was abolished by legislation in the British Empire (1833), Russia by czarist edict (1863) and Brazil by bloodless revolution (1889) because it was no longer economical, not because of higher moral authority. Slavery in the US would have been gone by 1875 regardless, for economic reasons. Is there a moral component? Sure, but it's not primary. The war was over federalism and the power of individual states on a variety of issues, including tariffs, not slavery per se. Agriculture, even now in some areas, requires backbreaking work by low paid people, else you pay $10 for a tomato. If any of you think that we're exceptional by annexing Hawai'i, starting a war with Spain to gain territory, starting a war with Vietnam and Iraq based on lies, then go for it. The US Senate is the most undemocratic body in a Western democracy. Two senators regardless of population and a virtual veto by filibuster. It rivals the Polish parliament prior to 1793 and makes it virtually useless and ineffective in today's hard core positions world. US a great place to live? Absolutely. Exceptional, no--at least not any more.

 

[Carl Spackler]

General Early is buried next to my maternal grandparents and other ancestors in Spring Hill Cemetery in Lynchburg. He was a bit of a nut case but a fine general. He has a tasteful monument reflective of the period. Those of you who have drunk the PC Kool-Aid about the causes of the Civil War are incorrect. Slavery existed because it was economical and for no other reason. It was replaced by slavery light, with Northern OK, which existed until the 1960's. Slavery was abolished by legislation in the British Empire (1833), Russia by czarist edict (1863) and Brazil by bloodless revolution (1889) because it was no longer economical, not because of higher moral authority. Slavery in the US would have been gone by 1875 regardless, for economic reasons. Is there a moral component? Sure, but it's not primary. The war was over federalism and the power of individual states on a variety of issues, including tariffs, not slavery per se. Agriculture, even now in some areas, requires backbreaking work by low paid people, else you pay $10 for a tomato. If any of you think that we're exceptional by annexing Hawai'i, starting a war with Spain to gain territory, starting a war with Vietnam and Iraq based on lies, then go for it. The US Senate is the most undemocratic body in a Western democracy. Two senators regardless of population and a virtual veto by filibuster. It rivals the Polish parliament prior to 1793 and makes it virtually useless and ineffective in today's hard core positions world. US a great place to live? Absolutely. Exceptional, no--at least not any more.

Hard to argue - any of that. Makes me sad for my country, and I'm not impressed with the current administration at all, looks a hell of a lot like he was operating from the Karl Marx 10 step plan to me for the past 3 years, and somehow, has the backing to do it.

FWIW _ in CT - slavery was "officially" abolished in 1848. But as noted, it was an economic thing, by 1848 the number of slaves in teh state had decreased to something like less than 500, maybe less - they had all been shipped out or sold. The industrial capability in CT had been transferred to the cheap backbones of Irish immigrants over slaves, after the potato famine in Ireland, the 1840s, in CT, the slaves got pushed out as a workforce. Irish were actually more economical than having slaves, and it was cheaper for employers to pay the Irish immigrants dirt, and let them fend for themselves otherwise, than to maintain slaves. Those 500 or so slaves left in CT, were awarded the right to own property and vote after 1848 though, well before the Civil War.

It's interesting to read the history of the Emancipation Proclamation, b/c it was one of the first major social changes that was enacted by a President, during a time of war, based on the powers granted as being commander of all military forces. The number of slaves that did enlist in the Union army, was a contributing factor, in the ability of the north to win the war.

 

[Waquoit]

Whaddya know? A Lost Causer on The Boneyard. Whoda thunk it?

 

[metsfan2323]

It was replaced by slavery light, with Northern OK, which existed until the 1960's.

Slavery light? Please define that one.

I suppose Booth didn't kill Lincoln either. Lincoln died because blood was escaping out of a hole in his head. Booth never touched him.

 

[Adios]

Slavery light? Please define that one.

I suppose Booth didn't kill Lincoln either. Lincoln died because blood was escaping out of a hole in his head.

Very low cost labor. Ever hear about Chinese factory workers?

 

[metsfan2323]

Very low cost labor. Ever hear about Chinese factory workers?

Wow, I hope this is not indicative of a UCONN education. Blacks in the South in the 1860's were not slaves they were just low cost labor?

 

[UConnDan97]

Wow, I hope this is not indicative of a UCONN education. Blacks in the South in the 1860's were not slaves they were just low cost labor?

Are you serious?? First of all, do you think that Blacks in the South (or North) simply got good paying jobs and property rights in 1865?? I'm sure you're aware of the treatment of black people, leading all the way up to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and beyond. I'm also sure that you're aware that many blacks had to stay on plantations in order to survive, working for the same "former" slave owners. And then we can talk about the KKK.

And all of that is independent of the way that Irish, Jewish, Italian, and Chinese immigrants (among other groups) were treated as well. So yeah, "Slavery light" is not that inappropriate of a term, right?

 

[UConnDan97]

...oh, yeah, and the bottom teams in the SEC are overrated...

 

[metsfan2323]

Are you serious?? First of all, do you think that Blacks in the South (or North) simply got good paying jobs and property rights in 1865?? I'm sure you're aware of the treatment of black people, leading all the way up to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and beyond. I'm also sure that you're aware that many blacks had to stay on plantations in order to survive, working for the same "former" slave owners. And then we can talk about the KKK.

And all of that is independent of the way that Irish, Jewish, Italian, and Chinese immigrants (among other groups) were treated as well. So yeah, "Slavery light" is not that inappropriate of a term, right?

You know what, I misread the original post by UC1974, my bad. He said slavery light existed until the 1960's, I read it as 1860' by mistake. I thought he was saying that we had slavery light before the civil war started. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

 

[BlueMAB]

Are you serious?? First of all, do you think that Blacks in the South (or North) simply got good paying jobs and property rights in 1865?? I'm sure you're aware of the treatment of black people, leading all the way up to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and beyond. I'm also sure that you're aware that many blacks had to stay on plantations in order to survive, working for the same "former" slave owners. And then we can talk about the KKK.

And all of that is independent of the way that Irish, Jewish, Italian, and Chinese immigrants (among other groups) were treated as well. So yeah, "Slavery light" is not that inappropriate of a term, right?

Don't disagree, but it should be noted there was legislation passed during reconstruction to give former slaves 40 acres and a mule, and to give blacks many civil rights, all passed by a republican controlled legislature until overturned years later by democrat controlled legislature who also gave us Jim Crow laws. In fact the first black man elected to Congress was Joseph Rainey (R-SC) in 1870, and he had a summer home here in CT.

Slavery light would have been better (and more accurately) referred to as share cropping, which I'm sure you're aware of (no sarcasm intended).

 

[UConnDan97]

Don't disagree, but it should be noted there was legislation passed during reconstruction to give former slaves 40 acres and a mule, and to give blacks many civil rights, all passed by a republican controlled legislature until overturned years later by democrat controlled legislature who also gave us Jim Crow laws. In fact the first black man elected to Congress was Joseph Rainey (R-SC) in 1870, and he had a summer home here in CT.

Slavery light would have been better (and more accurately) referred to as share cropping, which I'm sure you're aware of (no sarcasm intended).

Agreed. Although, again, let's not kid ourselves as to whether or not African Americans could actually enforce land rights back then. And let's also not kid ourselves that they didn't also fear for their lives if they didn't abide by "white rules," no matter which party was in control of the legislature...

 

[freescooter]

General Early is buried next to my maternal grandparents and other ancestors in Spring Hill Cemetery in Lynchburg. He was a bit of a nut case but a fine general. He has a tasteful monument reflective of the period. Those of you who have drunk the PC Kool-Aid about the causes of the Civil War are incorrect. Slavery existed because it was economical and for no other reason. It was replaced by slavery light, with Northern OK, which existed until the 1960's. Slavery was abolished by legislation in the British Empire (1833), Russia by czarist edict (1863) and Brazil by bloodless revolution (1889) because it was no longer economical, not because of higher moral authority. Slavery in the US would have been gone by 1875 regardless, for economic reasons. Is there a moral component? Sure, but it's not primary. The war was over federalism and the power of individual states on a variety of issues, including tariffs, not slavery per se. Agriculture, even now in some areas, requires backbreaking work by low paid people, else you pay $10 for a tomato. If any of you think that we're exceptional by annexing Hawai'i, starting a war with Spain to gain territory, starting a war with Vietnam and Iraq based on lies, then go for it. The US Senate is the most undemocratic body in a Western democracy. Two senators regardless of population and a virtual veto by filibuster. It rivals the Polish parliament prior to 1793 and makes it virtually useless and ineffective in today's hard core positions world. US a great place to live? Absolutely. Exceptional, no--at least not any more.

That is absolute nonsense. While it was referred to in different ways--PC isn't a new invention--the South's peculiar situation, state's rights, and several others, the fact of the matter is that the right that the southern states were fighting for was the right to keep human chattel. Everything else was window dressing. You don't believe me, how about Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the CSA then comparing the US Constitution with that of the Conferacy:
"Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition." It wasn't until AFTER the Civil War that the idea that it was fought for other issues was brought forward.

That was the cornerstone of the Confederate Government. Not taxes. Not trade, nor States' rights. Slavery. The rest, as I said, was window dressing.

 

[BlueMAB]

Agreed. Although, again, let's not kid ourselves as to whether or not African Americans could actually enforce land rights back then. And let's also not kid ourselves that they didn't also fear for their lives if they didn't abide by "white rules," no matter which party was in control of the legislature...

Wasn't implying that. Only that reform and reconstruction was underway long before 1964.

 

[BlueMAB]

Those of you who have drunk the PC Kool-Aid about the causes of the Civil War are incorrect.

Don't you mean the "War of Northern Aggression"?

 

[UConnDan97]

I agree with a lot of what many are posting on the topic of the Civil War and slavery, but it is starting to feel like a "Cesspool" thread. Believe me, everyone, that isn't a compliment.

How about the Big East whooping up on the SEC, though? Now THAT'S what I'm talking about...

 

[metsfan2323]

I agree with a lot of what many are posting on the topic of the Civil War and slavery, but it is starting to feel like a "Cesspool" thread. Believe me, everyone, that isn't a compliment.

How about the Big East whooping up on the SEC, though? Now THAT'S what I'm talking about...

This Civil War subject kinda fits under an SEC perception thread.

 

[UConnDan97]

This Civil War subject kinda fits under an SEC perception thread.

Only in so far as the Boston Tea Party fits into BC's perception. The real topic should be about television companies and how they artificially prop up their properties.

 

[Carl Spackler]

I admittedly am not well versed in the politics that led up to the civil war, and not that much on the actual war itself. I do agree with the tenets, that warfare is an extension of politics by forceful means, and that the nature of warfare is to self serve in achieving the goal - which is to win by forcefully defeating your enemy into submission...

WIth that in mind, and the fact that the Emancipation Proclomation, formally presented by Lincoln, after the North defeated the south at the battle of antietam - and that many so called "freed" slaves enlisted and fought in the Union army thereafter - tells me that slavery and the issues around it were definitely a big part of what went down in the U.S.A. in the early 1860s.

There clearly was a lot more to it though. The southern states didn't decide they didn't want to be part of the whole thing anymore becuase somebody up north told them they couldn't have slaves and participate in the slave trade anymore with Africa, and the Atlantic Ocean wasn't the only ocean that African slaves were being shipped across, and North America wasn't the only destination for slaves at the time.

 

[freescooter]

In my opinion the North won the war because of 2 key advantages: Rails and Industry. The North had huge advantages in the amount of railroads and the industries to feed the war machine. The South basically had nothing. Their biggest city was Charleston, iirc.

In part, but they also had the best general. It just took them a while to find it. People forget that Grant had pretty much ended any effective Confederate control west of the Mississippi by 1863.

 

[Santini35]

 

[Dann]

on the sec topic. miss st is expanding like 6k seats with a new vid board and some bathrooms. guess how much? 75mil lol. we could almost build another rent for that.

 

[Kgun7]

That is absolute nonsense. While it was referred to in different ways--PC isn't a new invention--the South's peculiar situation, state's rights, and several others, the fact of the matter is that the right that the southern states were fighting for was the right to keep human chattel. Everything else was window dressing. You don't believe me, how about Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the CSA then comparing the US Constitution with that of the Conferacy:
"Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition." It wasn't until AFTER the Civil War that the idea that it was fought for other issues was brought forward.

That was the cornerstone of the Confederate Government. Not taxes. Not trade, nor States' rights. Slavery. The rest, as I said, was window dressing.

Agree with scooter here ... the only states rights the CSA were fighting for was the right to own slaves.

 

[UConnDan97]

I think it's time for Santini to show us the "after" photo of that boat in front of the big tanker...

 

[Jaichim24]

Have you ever asked yourself, how, basically just after Lincolns election the whole country was ready to go to war? How could Lincoln have so profound affect? Wanting to fight and kill another person just doesn't happen in a day or month. If you're really curious as to why or how Lincoln was able to foster an environment where the entire country went to war, read up about the Hartford Wide Awake's movement. It was a grass roots movement started by 5 young dry goods clerks in Hartford (who were members of the newly founded republican party) that turned out to be one of the most successful grass root movements in our country's history. On the one side you had young men, dressing in para military type uniforms, marching with torches to meetings, and giving each other military type ranks and positions within the movement. (part of it was the ladies fancied it) Do you think if someone tried to do that now a days it would be allowed? Ruby Ridge anyone? These demonstrations grew, and caused fear in the south. So the north riled themselves up, the south was fearful of "those wide awakes". So by the time Lincoln was elected the country and it's youth were primed.

Check out this link for a better description of how 5 drygoods clerks from good old Hartford Connecticut contributed to the Civil War.

http://www.journalofamericanhistory.org/projects/lincoln/contents/grinspan.html

The militarism of the Wide Awakes helps explain how the election of Lincoln sparked the Civil War. Historians have long pondered the missing link between the complex politics of the 1850s and the war. It is difficult to believe that the Civil War could have erupted as a popular conflict—with hundreds of thousands of excited volunteers—unless political debates were transformed into larger cultural motivators. The Wide Awakes enabled that transformation. The movement’s dangerous use of militarism for political purposes unintentionally bled into powerful cultural agitation that terrified southerners. Young northerners equipped with uniforms and torches sent an ominous message to those already apprehensive about the Republican party’s antisouthern attitudes. While certainly not a cause of the war, the Wide Awakes’ presence ratcheted up sectional pressure and invested Lincoln’s election with weighty significance. Understanding how the organization worked helps connect the political and military campaigns.

 

[Carl Spackler]

A lot of history in CT.

 

[RedSoloCup]

A lot of history in CT.

we are REVOLUTIONARY