The death of a school's tradition?

#251
#251
IPorange said:
well, that's my take. Someone else may have a different one.
Click to expand...

I don't think anybody would argue much with you as far as your definition of states' rights. Where the argument comes in is about how much "states' rights" is really sort of way of way of fudging the concept when what the issue really was was just slavery. Similar to how a woman might say that she's looking for a man with "stability" when what she really means is she's looking for a man who "makes a lot of money."

Slavery and its secure, perpetual existence was obviously states' right #1 at issue. The argument is whether any of the other ones really mattered that much at all in the south's decision to secede. I would argue no, not really. Other people disagree strongly.
 
#252
#252
Are you a vampire that was around during that time to gauge the thoughts of the populace at the time?
 
#253
#253
Vercingetorix said:
I don't think anybody would argue much with you as far as your definition of states' rights. Where the argument comes in is about how much "states' rights" is really sort of way of way of fudging the concept when what the issue really was was just slavery. Similar to how a woman might say that she's looking for a man with "stability" when what she really means is she's looking for a man who "makes a lot of money."

Slavery and its secure, perpetual existence was obviously states' right #1 at issue. The argument is whether any of the other ones really mattered that much at all in the south's decision to secede. I would argue no, not really. Other people disagree strongly.
Click to expand...

IMO, slavery was irreconcilably intertwined with the South's entire economic beef with the North, which was the "state rights." There's just no separating slavery.
 
#256
#256
chavisut said:
Isn't this thread about banning it from sporting events, team names, etc.?
Click to expand...
I'm not saying there should be a law against it, I just wouldn't blame Mississippi at all if they made the changes to distance themselves from it. I think it would be in their schools best interest, but I'm just glad Tennessee doesn't have to deal with it.
 
#257
#257
tvolsfan said:
I'm not saying there should be a law against it, I just wouldn't blame Mississippi at all if they made the changes to distance themselves from it. I think it would be in their schools best interest, but I'm just glad Tennessee doesn't have to deal with it.
Click to expand...
At least we don't have to become Black Bears. The high school I graduated from in Memphis had a mascot of the rebels and have since changed it to the wolverines. Are wolverines more politically correct than black bears?
 
#258
#258
hmanvolfan said:
Are you a vampire that was around during that time to gauge the thoughts of the populace at the time?
Click to expand...

No, but I'm capable of reading and critical thinking. Amazing how useful those two skills are.

If you want to wave your Rebel flag and teach your spawn that the South seceded from the Union and fought a five-year war that damn near destroyed it because they had really, really principled disagreements with the North about Article 6 of the Constitution, then that's your prerogative. Slavery was a total afterthought, and the only reason anybody even thinks about it now was because of Lincoln's dirty PR stunt, the Emancipation Proclamation. Cheating bastard.
 
#259
#259
The Industrial Revolution allowed England and France to produce and ship products across the Atlantic that were cheaper than the products of the Northern maufacturers. When Lincoln was elected President, he and the U.S. Congress immediately passed the Morrill Tariff O the highest import tax in U.S. history), more than doubling the import tax rate from 20% to 47%. this tax served to bankrupt many Southeners. Though the Southern states reperesented only about 30%.the U.S. population, they paid 80% of the tariffs collected. Oppressive taxes, denial of the states' rights to govern themselves, and an unrepresentaive federal government pushed the Souther states to LEGALLY withdraw from the Union.....a short history lesson for yall.....a few quotes from the "hero" Union leaders : "If I thought this war was to abolish slavery, I would resign my commission, and offermy sword to the other side" -Ulysses S. Grant, another.. -I will say then, that i am not,nor have I ever been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races...I am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race." - Abraham Lincoln...please put down your New England based history books, and support the REAL cause my/our ansestors fought and died for
 
#260
#260
jdbeard said:
The Industrial Revolution allowed England and France to produce and ship products across the Atlantic that were cheaper than the products of the Northern maufacturers. When Lincoln was elected President, he and the U.S. Congress immediately passed the Morrill Tariff O the highest import tax in U.S. history), more than doubling the import tax rate from 20% to 47%. this tax served to bankrupt many Southeners. Though the Southern states reperesented only about 30%.the U.S. population, they paid 80% of the tariffs collected. Oppressive taxes, denial of the states' rights to govern themselves, and an unrepresentaive federal government pushed the Souther states to LEGALLY withdraw from the Union.....a short history lesson for yall.....a few quotes from the "hero" Union leaders : "If I thought this war was to abolish slavery, I would resign my commission, and offermy sword to the other side" -Ulysses S. Grant, another.. -I will say then, that i am not,nor have I ever been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races...I am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race." - Abraham Lincoln...please put down your New England based history books, and support the REAL cause my/our ansestors fought and died for
Click to expand...
The South committed treason. The South lost. Get over it.
 
#261
#261
therealUT said:
I've never read Co. Aytch.

You are correct, it the account is not self-aggrandizing. I read it and enjoyed it. After I had read it, when I was posting a review to Amazon, I saw that someone had questioned the authenticity. The thing that stuck out most to me was the discrepancy regarding the uniform; that made me take a closer look at the rest and compare his combat memoir to other combat memoirs I had read. At the time I read the book, I had not yet been in combat, ergo I did not fully understand the feelings associated. Having been through combat, I find some of his experiences and reactions hard to believe. Also, having served in the military, I cannot imagine that I would ever unwittingly or confusedly write that my Ranger tab did not go on my left shoulder and my combat patch does not go on my right shoulder. Attention to detail is absolutely paramount in Infantry units and I cannot see the German Wehrmacht being anything other than more obsessed with rigid detail than the US military.
Click to expand...

What is this incoherent babble trying to communicate?
 
#262
#262
jdbeard said:
The Industrial Revolution allowed England and France to produce and ship products across the Atlantic that were cheaper than the products of the Northern maufacturers. When Lincoln was elected President, he and the U.S. Congress immediately passed the Morrill Tariff O the highest import tax in U.S. history), more than doubling the import tax rate from 20% to 47%. this tax served to bankrupt many Southeners. Though the Southern states reperesented only about 30%.the U.S. population, they paid 80% of the tariffs collected. Oppressive taxes, denial of the states' rights to govern themselves, and an unrepresentaive federal government pushed the Souther states to LEGALLY withdraw from the Union.....a short history lesson for yall.....a few quotes from the "hero" Union leaders : "If I thought this war was to abolish slavery, I would resign my commission, and offermy sword to the other side" -Ulysses S. Grant, another.. -I will say then, that i am not,nor have I ever been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races...I am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race." - Abraham Lincoln...please put down your New England based history books, and support the REAL cause my/our ansestors fought and died for
Click to expand...

Nicely stated. Alas, there were more complex issues (as i have pounded in many post) surrounding secession that those that have had their history spoon fed to them realize.
 
#264
#264
Coach Grizz said:
Ok I got a question? I'm a big history buff but somethings I don't know. Some of y'all are highly educated, I just have a high school education. So, What were some of the states rights that the south were fighting for? I know that they wanted to become their own nation but what are some other rights?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

The Northern armies were not fighting to free the slaves and the Southern armies were not fighting to defend slavery. The goal of the North was to defeat the Confederacy in order to restore the Union; the goal of the South was to win its fight for independence. From the beginning to the end, Lincoln made it clear that slavery/emancipation was secondary to reunion. (As it happened, the fate of 4 million slaves hung in the balance once Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation.)

Most Southerners owned no slaves--many such as Lee and Jackson favored gradual emancipation--but they were strongly opposed to abolition for political, economic and social reasons. Moreover, the powerful minority of slaveholders were calling the shots (politically speaking). In short, slavery precipitated secession and doomed the Confederacy. The Confederate government was unwilling to sacrifice slavery for the cause of independence, so there was no chance for a negotiated (political) settlement of the war. In this sense, it unintentionally became a war for/against slavery, but that was not why the two sides were fighting.

But the North won and wanted to attach a moral high ground to their armed invasion of the South. Alas, the myth that the North was fighting to free slaves and the South fighting to protect it was created and pertetuated by Northern historians.
Simple critical analysis of the issue quickly dismisses that claim.

It is almost akin to claiming that the US involvement in WWII was to liberate those in the concentration camps. They (we) did do that but it was not the reason we were in Europe.
 
#265
#265
Vercingetorix said:
It's pretty simple. They got butchered because their home states built an economy so dependent on human cattle that they had to go to war to keep it.

You can remember the people without celebrating the cause they were sent to war for. There's a picture of my great-grandfather, a decorated Confederate solider, hanging on the wall in my living room, but you sure as hell aren't going to see a Confederate flag flying in front of my house.
Click to expand...

What about guys from union states that fought for the South? Their home states didn't have the moral issue to deal with. Wonder why they fought for the bad guys:
" some Hoosiers chose to fight for the South. Most traveled to Kentucky to join Confederate regiments formed in that state. Sgt. Henry L. Stone of Greencastle rode with John Hunt Morgan when he raided Indiana. The exact number of Hoosiers to serve in Confederate armies is unknown, but there are numerous references to such men.[41] Former U.S. Army officer Francis A. Shoup briefly led the Indianapolis Zouave militia, but left for Florida prior to the start of the war and ultimately become a Confederate Brigadier General.[13"

Did they deserve to be butchered because of the sin of the state they were born in?
 
#266
#266
therealUT said:
I've never read Co. Aytch.

You are correct, it the account is not self-aggrandizing. I read it and enjoyed it. After I had read it, when I was posting a review to Amazon, I saw that someone had questioned the authenticity. The thing that stuck out most to me was the discrepancy regarding the uniform; that made me take a closer look at the rest and compare his combat memoir to other combat memoirs I had read. At the time I read the book, I had not yet been in combat, ergo I did not fully understand the feelings associated. Having been through combat, I find some of his experiences and reactions hard to believe. Also, having served in the military, I cannot imagine that I would ever unwittingly or confusedly write that my Ranger tab did not go on my left shoulder and my combat patch does not go on my right shoulder. Attention to detail is absolutely paramount in Infantry units and I cannot see the German Wehrmacht being anything other than more obsessed with rigid detail than the US military.
Click to expand...

On a serious note thank you for your service. You should read Co. Aytch. It offers a unique perspective of a foot soldier fighting a horrible war and being a veteran I believe you would appreciate it.

In the case of The Forgotten Soldier there is controversy but this summary I didn't write is another take on it:
Some authors and Grossdeutschland veterans have testified to the book's historical plausibility, even if they cannot speak to the specific events in the book. Lt. Hans Joachim Schafmeister-Berckholtz, who served in the Grossdeutschland during the same period as Sajer, confirmed in a letter that he had read the book and considered it an accurate overall account of the Division's battles in the East, while also noting that he remembered a Landser named Sajer in his Panzergrenadier company (5th co), the same company number Sajer mentioned being assigned to (though there was more than one "5th Company" in the Division). Sajer himself struck back against implications of fraud or fiction by claiming that The Forgotten Soldier was intended as a personal narrative, based on his best personal recollections of an intensely chaotic period in German military history, not an attempt at a serious historical study of World War II: "You ask me questions of chronology situations dates and unimportant details. Historians and archivists have harassed me for a long time with their rude questions. All of this is unimportant. Other authors and high-ranking officers could respond to your questions better than I. I never had the intention to write a historical reference book; rather I wrote about my innermost emotional experiences as they relate to the events that happened to me in the context of the Second World War."[3]

Sajer further stressed the non-technical and anecdotal nature of his book in a 1997 letter to US Army historian Douglas Nash, stating "Apart from the emotions I brought out, I confess my numerous mistakes. That is why I would like that this book may not be used under [any] circumstances as a strategic or chronological reference." [4] After reading Sajer's latest letter, one of his staunchest critics—Grossdeutschland Veteran's Association leader Helmuth Spaeter—recanted his original suspicions of Sajer, noting "I was deeply impressed by his statements in his letter... I have underestimated Herr Sajer and my respect for him has greatly increased. I am myself more of a writer who deals with facts and specifics—much less like one who writes in a literary way. For this reason, I was very skeptical towards the content of his book. I now have greater regard for Herr Sajer and I will read his book once again." In additional defense of the book, there are many very accurate references in the book that have been gleaned from official histories. Bunkers on beaches which exist to this day and descriptions of towns and terrain which are verifiable through unit histories provide excellent support to Sajer's story. One of the more compelling arguments is a reference to and accurate description of a ship called the "Pretoria" (later named the "GUNUNG DJATI"), which the author places in Hel on March 28 or 29th of 1945 and is verifiable through open sources. This ship was in fact purchased by the Kriegsmarine at the start of the war and used to evacuate areas around the Baltic at this precise time. The ships logs record leaving Hel at 9:00 AM on the morning of the 30th. And finally, the comrade of the author ("Hals") who is referred throughout the book has been identified, contacted, and has verified Grossdeutschland unit accounts. Despite the recent critique from mostly U.S. military historians, it is still considered to be (at the very least) an accurate picture of real life by the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College and has remained on their recommended reading list for World War II with other historical novels.
 
#268
#268
I think this is a joke. I see absolutely no issue with "Ole Miss", "Rebels", or "Col Reb" for that matter. That is the schools tradition. I'm 24 and have been watching SEC football for a while and can say slavery has never popped in my head when Ole Miss was mentioned.
 
#269
#269
volunteerlane said:
I think this is a joke. I see absolutely no issue with "Ole Miss", "Rebels", or "Col Reb" for that matter. That is the schools tradition. I'm 24 and have been watching SEC football for a while and can say slavery has never popped in my head when Ole Miss was mentioned.
Click to expand...

Your age has a lot to do with your perspective.

I think the consensus here is the mascot/nickname is fine.

It's the band playing the Confederate hymn and the rebel flags that's being scrutinized.
 
#270
#270
gasguy98 said:
Did they deserve to be butchered because of the sin of the state they were born in?
Click to expand...
Who's talking about the sin of the state they were born in? I'm pretty sure we're talking about the whole taking up arms against their own country issue.
 
#272
#272
gasguy98 said:
It is almost akin to claiming that the US involvement in WWII was to liberate those in the concentration camps. They (we) did do that but it was not the reason we were in Europe.
Click to expand...
And yet, you don't see a bunch of Germans carrying Nazi flags claiming they're celebrating their brave soldiers who died for their country, do you?

And before anyone attacks me, he made the comparison. I just think it's silly to argue the brave soldiers weren't fighting for the unjust cause, and then celebrate that by carrying the symbol of said cause.
 
Last edited:
#273
#273
tvolsfan said:
And yet, you don't see a bunch of Germans carrying Nazi flags claiming they're celebrating their brave soldiers who died for their country, do you?

And before anyone attacks me, he made the comparison. I just think it's silly to argue the brave soldiers weren't fighting for the unjust cause, and then celebrate that by carrying the symbol of said cause.
Click to expand...

That could have something to do with the fact that a lot of German soldiers were conscripted.
 
#274
#274
I still don't see why they didn't go with the Ole Miss Black Panthers.

Think of the implications of going from a Confederate mascot to a Black Panther...

It can only spell victory.

It's certainly better than a stupid bear...

Plus, I was told, if you're going to be a bear, be a Grizzly.
So don't name yourself after some baby-sized, berry eating, bear. Go all the way. That's like if they Jets named themselves the Cessnas.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top