- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Missouri doesn't belong in the SEC
Posted on 10/6/11 at 9:25 pm to GatorNDAHood
Posted on 10/6/11 at 9:25 pm to GatorNDAHood
World War 2?
0
Posted on 10/6/11 at 9:26 pm to Tiger n Miami AU83
No need to refight the war.
Suffice to say, if the US government was more limited, I believe our country would be in much better condition.
Suffice to say, if the US government was more limited, I believe our country would be in much better condition.
Posted on 10/6/11 at 9:27 pm to jturn17
quote:
However, from the South's side, even the State's expressed slavery as the #1 issue for their secession from the Union. So I think it's completely fair to say the Civil War when boiled down to it was about Slavery. Is it that simple if we're taking a Civil War History test? No, but slavery was the most important issue as it was the #1 reason the South seceded in the first place.
Maybe it boils down to a battle of semantics...
My interpretation of the main reason the South seceded, was because the North was trying to force a certain way of life on the South. Like you said, the North was struggling at best fiscally, and the South was killing it with cotton.
Everyone knows that the South, especially wealthy Southerners, were/are very prideful, so the North had to know that by pushing the anti-slavery issue on them, it would at some point lead to war. Which the North thought they'd win easily due to their population, infrastructure, and manufacturing capabilities.
They were not prepared for that Southern pride on the battle field.
quote:
You seem to be saying it's about money because the North didn't really care about Slavery, and were only concerned about the South leaving bc of loss of revenue. I'm not sure. I'm not a Scholar of the time, but I think that's a tough argument to make to be honest.
I think it was about money more than slavery, but like I said above, I think it was mainly about preserving their way of life. But again, this could fall back to the semantics argument...
quote:
My recollection is the South left because many Northern states started being really pissy about ending Slavery in new territories/states.
Yes, they were being forced into a way of life that they were not comfortable with.
I see it like this. There were two rationales behind the war:
1) The North wanted the South's cotton and agriculture, and the money that came with it.
2) The South did not want to give up their way of life...and money.
The North forced the war. They pushed the South into exactly what they wanted, because that was the only way the North was going to be able to get it. And while the South held up a helluva lot longer than anyone anticipated (Hell, they could've won the fricking thing if Stonewall keeps pushing in DC one night), the South was decimated after the war ended.
Posted on 10/6/11 at 9:29 pm to jturn17
quote:
This is what led me to believe you're angry. "fricking bleeding heart, misinformed, liberal." Tough to take you seriously with that view of people.
Oh, I just curse a lot.
But that is the way I feel.
Posted on 10/6/11 at 9:30 pm to RummelTiger
I love being in the SEC. I feel right at home.
Posted on 10/6/11 at 9:31 pm to MaroonDontRun
quote:
I love being in the SEC. I feel right at home.
Posted on 10/6/11 at 9:32 pm to 870Hog
LINK
Just to be clear...there are as many WVU fans in the nation as there are Missouri fans...the strength in numbers of the KC and STL markets rely heavily on those tv sets turning in to watch the SEC...not tv sets tuning in specifically to watch Missouri...because who really cares about .500 SEC team anyway?
The best part about this whole conference expansion is that people are assuming "super"conferences are going to happen...like the ACC, SEC, BIG 10, and PAC 12 will now get along with each other after years of raiding each other...now they will finally get along?...its like Democrats and Republicans getting along...its like a college football playoff is actually going to happen...LMFAO lets just hit the rewind button because none of this makes sense...Missouri and A&M are getting used and they think they are welcome...welcome to the cellar more like it
Just to be clear...there are as many WVU fans in the nation as there are Missouri fans...the strength in numbers of the KC and STL markets rely heavily on those tv sets turning in to watch the SEC...not tv sets tuning in specifically to watch Missouri...because who really cares about .500 SEC team anyway?
The best part about this whole conference expansion is that people are assuming "super"conferences are going to happen...like the ACC, SEC, BIG 10, and PAC 12 will now get along with each other after years of raiding each other...now they will finally get along?...its like Democrats and Republicans getting along...its like a college football playoff is actually going to happen...LMFAO lets just hit the rewind button because none of this makes sense...Missouri and A&M are getting used and they think they are welcome...welcome to the cellar more like it
Posted on 10/6/11 at 9:42 pm to dholjes84
quote:
Just to be clear...there are as many WVU fans in the nation as there are Missouri fans
Well, okay, first of all...I have no issues with y'all coming to the SEC. But you GOTTA get that fricking baseball field fixed. That thing is baaaaaaaaaaad.
Now, I don't think that those CLC stats are an indicator of you having just as many fans, but it's a great indicator that y'all spend money on licensed products, so that's good.
quote:
the strength in numbers of the KC and STL markets rely heavily on those tv sets turning in to watch the SEC...not tv sets tuning in specifically to watch Missouri...because who really cares about .500 SEC team anyway?
Correct. I'm not sure I get your point here.
quote:
Missouri and A&M are getting used and they think they are welcome...welcome to the cellar more like it
I disagree. Missouri and A&M will get what they want, and that's an arse-load of money without the hinderance of UT. Also, I think they come in and are obviously ahead of Vandy, UK, Ole Miss, and MSU. And while you might call that being in the cellar, I just say that it increases the SEC's supply of 2nd tier schools. Which is good.
Posted on 10/6/11 at 9:46 pm to dholjes84
Cool, but the thing is on stronger years Mizzou has the potential to pick up alot more fans. A great year boosts TV Views, Apparel, and Alcohol sells. So with Mizzou being in those market areas Mizzou has the potential to be alot prettier, add to the fact they are a good academic institution its even better.
ETA: You are comparing to why WVU is > than Mizzou right. (Kinda how I took it)
ETA: You are comparing to why WVU is > than Mizzou right. (Kinda how I took it)
This post was edited on 10/6/11 at 9:48 pm
Posted on 10/6/11 at 9:47 pm to RummelTiger
And here's why I'd equate the North with "good" before I'd equate it with the South.
It's tough for me to be too sympathetic with the South considering what was being "forced" upon them wasn't a "way of life" as much as it was an oppression over a huge swath of people. Interesting how you think it's bad that the North was "forcing" a way of life on the South, while the South was forcing millions of people into slavery. The irony is thick there.
Also, I'm not sure on your facts that the South was "killing it" while the North was poor. Very few people in the South were wealthy. Yet the majority of the whites in the South still supported slavery bc even though they were poor, they weren't slaves. It's always nice to not be in the bottom I suppose.
It really is amazing how well the South did was incredibly limited supplies. The Southern Generals were vastly superior to anything the North had though. Grant was incredibly incompetent as a General and as a President... If only Lee had accepted the Union's offer, we could have had President Lee instead.
Anyway, that last paragraph isn't the point. The original argument was why I thought the North was more good than the South. And that's my argument: because I don't think you're entitled to keep your way of life simply because you want to when it's something so abominable.
It's tough for me to be too sympathetic with the South considering what was being "forced" upon them wasn't a "way of life" as much as it was an oppression over a huge swath of people. Interesting how you think it's bad that the North was "forcing" a way of life on the South, while the South was forcing millions of people into slavery. The irony is thick there.
Also, I'm not sure on your facts that the South was "killing it" while the North was poor. Very few people in the South were wealthy. Yet the majority of the whites in the South still supported slavery bc even though they were poor, they weren't slaves. It's always nice to not be in the bottom I suppose.
It really is amazing how well the South did was incredibly limited supplies. The Southern Generals were vastly superior to anything the North had though. Grant was incredibly incompetent as a General and as a President... If only Lee had accepted the Union's offer, we could have had President Lee instead.
Anyway, that last paragraph isn't the point. The original argument was why I thought the North was more good than the South. And that's my argument: because I don't think you're entitled to keep your way of life simply because you want to when it's something so abominable.
Posted on 10/6/11 at 9:51 pm to jturn17
Most of the whites in the south never owned slaves.
What they were trying to protect was their own ability to be as free as possible from that government on the east coast.
The resentment that lingers is due to the fact that the war ruined a lot of lives of people who had no stake at all in slavery.
What they were trying to protect was their own ability to be as free as possible from that government on the east coast.
The resentment that lingers is due to the fact that the war ruined a lot of lives of people who had no stake at all in slavery.
Posted on 10/6/11 at 9:53 pm to fiercey
You must have been reading the revisionist history books.
Posted on 10/6/11 at 9:54 pm to jturn17
I'm going to respond to my own post bc I was just thinking how history would have changed, but..
Then the Duke's might have driven the President Lee! And this might have changed many Rantard's sig pics... Also, there would be 100s of High Schools in the South that would have had to come up with a name other than "Robert E Lee High."
Anyway, with an attempt to get back on topic, I'm perfectly fine with Missou joining the SEC. They're close. They border existing states. They aren't the worst program ever. They're actually available, unlike some other schools that we may want, but may not be able to get.
quote:
If only Lee had accepted the Union's offer, we could have had President Lee instead.
Then the Duke's might have driven the President Lee! And this might have changed many Rantard's sig pics... Also, there would be 100s of High Schools in the South that would have had to come up with a name other than "Robert E Lee High."
Anyway, with an attempt to get back on topic, I'm perfectly fine with Missou joining the SEC. They're close. They border existing states. They aren't the worst program ever. They're actually available, unlike some other schools that we may want, but may not be able to get.
Posted on 10/6/11 at 9:54 pm to jturn17
quote:
I don't think you're entitled to keep your way of life simply because you want to when it's something so abominable.
Back then it was the norm. Slavery built the world, sadly. It was around for thousands and thousands of years. Was it right, no. After slavery ended many former slaves got into a system of share-cropping which was considered worse than being slaves.
The end of my little north-south BS.
Posted on 10/6/11 at 9:58 pm to jturn17
quote:
And that's my argument: because I don't think you're entitled to keep your way of life simply because you want to when it's something so abominable.
Yes, but it was accepted around the world then. It was how things got done. It was what it was.
Then, there was a change in philosophy.
Comparatively speaking, the South was definitely killing it, while the North was having severe money issues. That's why they wanted the cotton so bad.
Yes, I agree that there is a monumental amount of irony in the situation, but the slaves never revolted, broke away, and fought for THEIR way of life. Why, because they knew that that's how things worked back then. Did it suck? Yep. But it was what it was.
And I'm not saying that the South was the 'good' side either, but everyone knows that hyperbole eventually leads Southerners down that road.
In the end, the COUNTRY is muuuuuuch better off today because of what happend from 1861-65.
Posted on 10/6/11 at 10:01 pm to wmr
quote:
Most of the whites in the south never owned slaves.
What they were trying to protect was their own ability to be as free as possible from that government on the east coast.
It's true most whites didn't own slaves, but to say the South seceded because these people wanted to be as free as possible is a stretch. The South seceded because the people in power and those that kept them in power wanted to. The masses had little input in the situation, as usual. Now the masses supported the decision, but that's what masses generally do.
quote:
The resentment that lingers is due to the fact that the war ruined a lot of lives of people who had no stake at all in slavery.
As far as this goes, I could understand that being the case in 1870-1900ish... But why would that resentment still linger today? Did the Civil War ruin our lives today? Seems like we could move on by now.
Posted on 10/6/11 at 10:04 pm to jturn17
quote:
jturn17
Out of curiosity...
Where are you from?
Posted on 10/6/11 at 10:12 pm to RummelTiger
I agree with a lot of what you've said here.. Although I'll make one contention.. many slaves did try to revolt and break away and fight for their lives. Nat Turner is a perfect example of this.
Problem is in the execution (pun not intended). The threat of being killed was a huge deterrent, especially for black men with families. This is why Marriage and families were emphasized by Slave owners to their slaves. A black man with a wife and kids wasn't a threat, but a black man with nothing to live for was a huge threat. Many slaves weren't allowed to read or write in part to make it more difficult for them revolt/run away, and make them more dependent on slavery for survival.
Most societies the US associated with had already abolished slavery between 1800-1820.. So while you could say it was the time, the abolitionist movement had taken hold around the world, and the US was behind by several decades. But I don't take too much issue with your phrasing.
Problem is in the execution (pun not intended). The threat of being killed was a huge deterrent, especially for black men with families. This is why Marriage and families were emphasized by Slave owners to their slaves. A black man with a wife and kids wasn't a threat, but a black man with nothing to live for was a huge threat. Many slaves weren't allowed to read or write in part to make it more difficult for them revolt/run away, and make them more dependent on slavery for survival.
Most societies the US associated with had already abolished slavery between 1800-1820.. So while you could say it was the time, the abolitionist movement had taken hold around the world, and the US was behind by several decades. But I don't take too much issue with your phrasing.
Posted on 10/6/11 at 10:12 pm to 870Hog
quote:
You are comparing to why WVU is > than Mizzou right. (Kinda how I took it
it is esp if expansion was about quality of sports programs b/c WVU has a better football and bball progaram. Mizzou for being a basketball school and never been to a final 4 is crazy.
But expansion is about tv sets
Posted on 10/6/11 at 10:13 pm to RummelTiger
Louisiana, LSU grad ;)
But I live in Chicago now
But I live in Chicago now
Page 3 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News