Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_ ... ourt_House" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


A great day!

dbackjon wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_ ... ourt_House

Lee surrendered...?
Jeezus man don't tell Citdog he's gonna be pissed

Didn't you miss it by a day, he surrendered on April 9th.

Chizzang wrote:

dbackjon wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_ ... ourt_House

Lee surrendered...?
Jeezus man don't tell Citdog he's gonna be pissed

Video of Citdog today.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdAF8JzFqd0[/youtube]

JoltinJoe wrote:

Chizzang wrote:
Lee surrendered...?
Jeezus man don't tell Citdog he's gonna be pissed

Video of Citdog today.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdAF8JzFqd0[/youtube]

Lmao

dbackjon wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_ ... ourt_House


A great day!

A horrible day because an essential principle was lost. That principle is that the States are sovereign. "States' Rights" was indeed the true path laid out by the Constitution.

I've seen, on a number of occasions, that the outcome of the Civil War settled the issue of "States' Rights." And it did. But it did not settle the issue as a matter or principle. It settled the issue in the sense that "might makes right." The Federal Government succeeded in bringing some States into line by brute force. And much more was lost than gained in the process because it left us with an all powerful central government.

JohnStOnge wrote:

dbackjon wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_ ... ourt_House


A great day!

A horrible day because an essential principle was lost. That principle is that the States are sovereign. "States' Rights" was indeed the true path laid out by the Constitution.

I've seen, on a number of occasions, that the outcome of the Civil War settled the issue of "States' Rights." And it did. But it did not settle the issue as a matter or principle. It settled the issue in the sense that "might makes right." The Federal Government succeeded in bringing some States into line by brute force. And much more was lost than gained in the process because it left us with an all powerful central government.

Well at least some human rights came out of it. That was ok, wasn't it?

Well at least some human rights came out of it. That was ok, wasn't it?

The net impact was negative.

JohnStOnge wrote:

Well at least some human rights came out of it. That was ok, wasn't it?

The net impact was negative.

Fuck. You are stupid.

kalm wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:
A horrible day because an essential principle was lost. That principle is that the States are sovereign. "States' Rights" was indeed the true path laid out by the Constitution.

I've seen, on a number of occasions, that the outcome of the Civil War settled the issue of "States' Rights." And it did. But it did not settle the issue as a matter or principle. It settled the issue in the sense that "might makes right." The Federal Government succeeded in bringing some States into line by brute force. And much more was lost than gained in the process because it left us with an all powerful central government.

Well at least some human rights came out of it. That was ok, wasn't it?

The negro was removed from one plantation and placed in another.

kalm wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:
A horrible day because an essential principle was lost. That principle is that the States are sovereign. "States' Rights" was indeed the true path laid out by the Constitution.

I've seen, on a number of occasions, that the outcome of the Civil War settled the issue of "States' Rights." And it did. But it did not settle the issue as a matter or principle. It settled the issue in the sense that "might makes right." The Federal Government succeeded in bringing some States into line by brute force. And much more was lost than gained in the process because it left us with an all powerful central government.

Well at least some human rights came out of it. That was ok, wasn't it?

Did some human rights come out of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars?

War is a racket, except for the US Civil War, which is a comic book story of good versus evil, amiright?

Lee was the best general on either side. Just ran out of time, men, money, and supplies.

Pwns wrote:

kalm wrote:
Well at least some human rights came out of it. That was ok, wasn't it?

Did some human rights come out of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars?

War is a racket, except for the US Civil War, which is a comic book story of good versus evil, amiright?

Riiiight...because all wars are the same.

Simple question about freedom touches a nerve .

JohnStOnge wrote:
A horrible day because an essential principle was lost. That principle is that the States are sovereign. "States' Rights" was indeed the true path laid out by the Constitution.

That principle was lost when we scrapped the Articles of Confederation and signed the Constitution.

The states were sovereign under the Articles of Confederation:

Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence

After that failed they signed the Constitution. The states were no longer sovereign.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

Edit: you really should read the Articles of Confederation, JSO. It really is the nation you are nostalgic for.
http://faculty.washington.edu/qtaylor/d ... ration.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

JohnStOnge wrote:

dbackjon wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_ ... ourt_House


A great day!

A horrible day because an essential principle was lost. That principle is that the States are sovereign. "States' Rights" was indeed the true path laid out by the Constitution.

I've seen, on a number of occasions, that the outcome of the Civil War settled the issue of "States' Rights." And it did. But it did not settle the issue as a matter or principle. It settled the issue in the sense that "might makes right." The Federal Government succeeded in bringing some States into line by brute force. And much more was lost than gained in the process because it left us with an all powerful central government.

Ever the drama queen...

GannonFan wrote:Didn't you miss it by a day, he surrendered on April 9th.

Facts never mattered to Jon. He holds 19th century people to 20th/21st century morals.

The ONLY difference between Lee and Washington is that Lee lost.

Ibanez wrote:

GannonFan wrote:Didn't you miss it by a day, he surrendered on April 9th.

Facts never mattered to Jon. He holds 19th century people to 20th/21st century morals.

The ONLY difference between Lee and Washington is that Lee lost.

Lol

Yes I knew I missed it but I do not say 150 years exactly

So bite me


And there were very very many people who realized that slavery was wrong even 150 years ago

JohnStOnge wrote:

dbackjon wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_ ... ourt_House


A great day!

A horrible day because an essential principle was lost. That principle is that the States are sovereign. "States' Rights" was indeed the true path laid out by the Constitution.

I've seen, on a number of occasions, that the outcome of the Civil War settled the issue of "States' Rights." And it did. But it did not settle the issue as a matter or principle. It settled the issue in the sense that "might makes right." The Federal Government succeeded in bringing some States into line by brute force. And much more was lost than gained in the process because it left us with an all powerful central government.

Slavery was a states right. This is the moment many historians regard as the beginning of big govt. Read the constitution of the CSA and you'll see how oppressive and regressive it was. Each state has its own passport, currency, etc... Intra-state travel and commerce was a bitch. The CSA was as bad as the USA whilst under the Articles of Confederation.


You simply don't like black people being equal to whites.

dbackjon wrote:

Ibanez wrote:
Facts never mattered to Jon. He holds 19th century people to 20th/21st century morals.

The ONLY difference between Lee and Washington is that Lee lost.

Lol

Yes I knew I missed it but I do not say 150 years exactly

So bite me


And there were very very many people who realized that slavery was wrong even 150 years ago

Well, by that standard Lincoln was assassinated 150yrs ago.

I wasn't talking about slavery, just the premise of State sovereignty.

dbackjon wrote:

Ibanez wrote:
Facts never mattered to Jon. He holds 19th century people to 20th/21st century morals.

The ONLY difference between Lee and Washington is that Lee lost.

Lol

Yes I knew I missed it but I do not say 150 years exactly

So bite me


And there were very very many people who realized that slavery was wrong even 150 years ago

Including Robert E Lee, James Longstreet, etc

Ivytalk wrote:Lee was the best general on either side. Just ran out of time, men, money, and supplies.

My oldest just downloaded a Civil War mod for Total War Shogun Two and ripped through the southrons with the Iron Brigade.

CitadelGrad wrote:

kalm wrote:
Well at least some human rights came out of it. That was ok, wasn't it?

The negro was removed from one plantation and placed in another.

and the rednecks are still stupid as ever!

mrklean wrote:

CitadelGrad wrote:
The negro was removed from one plantation and placed in another.

and the rednecks are still stupid as ever!

Citgrad doesn't speak for all whites. He's a racist douche.

Ibanez wrote:

mrklean wrote:

and the rednecks are still stupid as ever!

Citgrad doesn't speak for all whites. He's a racist douche.