Malik Langham, 2018 DE, Huntsville, AL (Offered)

Nobody here is condoning slavery ... and anybody that thinks that the Civil War was all about slavery likely hasn't studied enough history

That time period is a very important part of our history ... there are definitely some parallels of then versus now in terms of how people feel they are being represented by Washington

NorwegianHusky said:

Everything should be shut down, and we should all drive towards each other in dune buggies at full speed and try to chop each other's heads off with snow shovels.

This confirms the fact that you are Norwegian.

dnc said:

dhdawg said:

Tequilla said:

Nobody here is condoning slavery ... and anybody that thinks that the Civil War was all about slavery likely hasn't studied enough history

That time period is a very important part of our history ... there are definitely some parallels of then versus now in terms of how people feel they are being represented by Washington

I don't know if it was all about slavery. But read some of the secession statements. A lot of it was about slavery

Abundance.

The secession was 100% about slavery. But the Civil War wasn't 100% about slavery. From the northern perspective it was more about preserving the union than ending slavery. From the southern perspective it was more about pursuing/protecting their freedom to secede than protecting slavery.

Obviously there's a ton of overlap in those things.

Southerners are technically correct when they say the war wasn't just about slavery. But they're full of shit if they say the confederacy wasn't about slavery.

Well said, very few people are that educated about the Civil War.

'Lincoln didn’t see the Civil War as a struggle to free the nation’s 4 million slaves from bondage. Emancipation, when it came, would have to be gradual, and the important thing to do was to prevent the Southern rebellion from severing the Union permanently in two. But as the Civil War entered its second summer in 1862, thousands of slaves had fled Southern plantations to Union lines, and the federal government didn’t have a clear policy on how to deal with them. Emancipation, Lincoln saw, would further undermine the Confederacy while providing the Union with a new source of manpower to crush the rebellion."

Tequilla said:

For the South there was a lot of protecting State's rights and the fact that Washington was tied to advancing the industrial North versus the far more agricultural South ...

Free versus Slave was an issue but only to effect that it was the North dictating to the South how they should handle their business ...

I'm far from advocating slavery (in fact to the contrary) but with the way farms, etc were in those times (heavy manual labor), that's what it was.

Slavery goes back way back into history and was generally what happened to a people when conquered by others in war ...

It's easy to go back and retro QB ... but times were far different than ... we've advanced significantly in the 150 years since then ... just like we will 150 years from now

Ah yes, I remember a young, scrappy United States conquering Africa.

Tequilla said:

For the South there was a lot of protecting State's rights and the fact that Washington was tied to advancing the industrial North versus the far more agricultural South ...

Free versus Slave was an issue but only to effect that it was the North dictating to the South how they should handle their business ...

I'm far from advocating slavery (in fact to the contrary) but with the way farms, etc were in those times (heavy manual labor), that's what it was.

Slavery goes back way back into history and was generally what happened to a people when conquered by others in war ...

It's easy to go back and retro QB ... but times were far different than ... we've advanced significantly in the 150 years since then ... just like we will 150 years from now

----------------

Go back to 4chan David Duke!

Tequilla said:

For the South there was a lot of protecting State's rights and the fact that Washington was tied to advancing the industrial North versus the far more agricultural South ...

Free versus Slave was an issue but only to effect that it was the North dictating to the South how they should handle their business ...

I'm far from advocating slavery (in fact to the contrary) but with the way farms, etc were in those times (heavy manual labor), that's what it was.

Slavery goes back way back into history and was generally what happened to a people when conquered by others in war ...

It's easy to go back and retro QB ... but times were far different than ... we've advanced significantly in the 150 years since then ... just like we will 150 years from now

what

BallzDeep said:

Tequilla said:

Mosster47 said:

Some good news/bad news.

It is freaking hilarious/soul crushing to see a mass of black people with "Lee Football" all over them. The racism down here is just downright blatant.

The bad news is Lee is a smaller school and I will be coaching in 7A (big boy ball) so we won't be playing them. There will be no legit TBS report on this one.

So if a school is named after Robert E Lee it is racist?

Should Washington & Lee shut down?

Bounds of reason. It's hard to find very many prominent White U.S. historical figures who didn't own slaves.

dnc said:

dhdawg said:

Tequilla said:

Nobody here is condoning slavery ... and anybody that thinks that the Civil War was all about slavery likely hasn't studied enough history

That time period is a very important part of our history ... there are definitely some parallels of then versus now in terms of how people feel they are being represented by Washington

I don't know if it was all about slavery. But read some of the secession statements. A lot of it was about slavery

Abundance.

The secession was 100% about slavery. But the Civil War wasn't 100% about slavery. From the northern perspective it was more about preserving the union than ending slavery. From the southern perspective it was more about pursuing/protecting their freedom to secede than protecting slavery.

Obviously there's a ton of overlap in those things.

Southerners are technically correct when they say the war wasn't just about slavery. But they're full of shit if they say the confederacy wasn't about slavery.

Northerners were fighting to keep the Union together. Southerners were 100% fighting for their right to own and keep their slaves. Slavery was the back bone of the Southern economy. The South wasn't fighting for their right to secede because secession was never a right to begin with. It's always been unconstitutional and treason. Many throughout history have tried to argue that secession is a right but they always lose because there is nothing in the Constitution that states secession is a right and on top of that federal law trumps state law so the federal government would have to amend the Constitution to allow secession which obviously didn't happen. It's not really even debatable. Southern governors didn't really mince their words when explaining why their state wanted to secede. It was about slavery or their right to own their "property" aka their slaves.

I guess you missed the part where I said "The secession was 100% about slavery." And "they're full of shit if they say the confederacy wasn't about slavery."

PM TO teq - stick to midget porn

So is all this white-splaining or man-splaining?


I can't keep up anymore.

Take it to a Hahvahd Bah, fags.

WilburHooksHands said:

Tequilla said:

For the South there was a lot of protecting State's rights and the fact that Washington was tied to advancing the industrial North versus the far more agricultural South ...

Free versus Slave was an issue but only to effect that it was the North dictating to the South how they should handle their business ...

I'm far from advocating slavery (in fact to the contrary) but with the way farms, etc were in those times (heavy manual labor), that's what it was.

Slavery goes back way back into history and was generally what happened to a people when conquered by others in war ...

It's easy to go back and retro QB ... but times were far different than ... we've advanced significantly in the 150 years since then ... just like we will 150 years from now

Ah yes, I remember a young, scrappy United States conquering Africa.

Missing my point big time

What I was getting at was that slavery was part of society for Centuries ... so holding the South up (particularly today) for what happened there 150 years ago I just don't get the point. It's part of the past ... thankfully not part of the present and hopefully not part of the future.

I'm sure there are idiots down there that subscribe to the "South Will Rise Again" and would love for slavery. Fuck those people. But making people today in the South feel guilty about what their great great great grandfather did 150+ years ago ... that's stupid too. And there is plenty of pride in those people that they aren't going to disrespect that relative even if they disagree with them.

Anybody that has taken anything I've said as supporting slavery is insanely idiotic ... nothing could be further from the truth.

But at the same time, there's this need and desire in this country to look backwards instead of looking forward. Solving problems requires understanding the past (and the hard truths about it) to find solutions for the future. The past isn't going to change. Striking the past from memory isn't going to change the future.