parsons

I won't argue with what you're saying, because you're correct. The United States government has perpetuated horrible acts. But take a look at our current Constitution, Tell me which parts you find objectionable. This country, even with its flaws, has an ideal that is moral in purpose, being established with the goal of treating all equally and with fairness. The Confederacy, like Nazi Germany, had no redeeming characteristics. Your comparison is a false analogy.

Does anyone else hear the trumpets of angels????

Lol, You're both plainly ignoring the fact that the south explicitly seceded to preserve slavery. Lincoln's inaugural speech was an attempt to woo the southern states that had seceded back to the fold, and to keep the other slaveholding states from seceding. He had always valued the preservation of the Union over his personal distaste for slavery. But the southern states knew his true feelings about slavery ---- from The Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina: "A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that 'Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free,' and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction."

Actually, since I've hijacked the thread, I'll not print the other two. Feel free to read what Fulton Anderson (SC) and John Preston (SC) had to say. They're easily accessible online. Both continue in the same vein as Benning. Y'all can get back to football....

South Carolina, Georgia, and Mississippi all sent delegates to the Virginia secession convention to convince Virginia to secede. I'll give you snippets from each speech. Henry Benning (GA) : "I have been appointed by the Convention of the State of Georgia, to present to this Convention, the ordinance of secession of Georgia, and further, to invite Virginia, through this Convention ' to join Georgia and the other seceded States in the formation of a Southern Confederacy. This, sir, is the whole extent of my mission. 1 have no power to make promises, none to receive promises; no power to bind at all in any respect. But still, sir, it has seemed to me that a proper respect for this Convention requires that I should with some fulness and particularity, exhibit before the Convention the reasons which have induced Georgia to take that important step of secession, and then to lay before the Convention some facts and considerations in favor of the acceptance of the invitation by Virginia. With your permission then, sit, I will pursue this course. What was the reason that induced Georgia to take the step of secession? This reason may be summed up in one single proposition. It was a conviction, a deep conviction on the part of Georgia, that a separation from the North-was the only thing that could prevent the abolition of her slavery. This conviction, sir, was the main cause. It is true, sir, that the effect of this conviction was strengthened by a further conviction that such a separation would be the best remedy for the fugitive slave evil, and also the best, if not the only remedy, for the territorial evil. But, doubtless, if it had not been for the first conviction this step would never have been taken."

No, Leatherhead, you're wrong, Internet blogs will mislead you everytime. The tariffs and states' rights arguments are the first things confederate apologists throw out, but both are flat out wrong. An attempt to pass the Morrill tariff occurred in the fall of 1860, but the vote was tabled because the supporters of the tariff didn't have the votes to pass it. In fact, the supporters couldn't even get it out of the finance committee until seven southern states had seceded. Regarding states' rights, all you have to do is compare the southern constitution with the U.S. Constitution. In the Confederate Constitution, at least three states rights are explicitly taken away.......the freedom of states to grant voting rights to non-citizens, the freedom of states to trade freely with each other, and the freedom of states to outlaw slavery within their borders. As far as slave-owning rights go, however, the document is ironclad, and far more overreaching than the U.S. Constitution. Four different clauses entrench the legality of slavery in a number of different ways, and together they virtually guarantee that any sort of anti-slave law or policy would be unconstitutional. Oh boy, now I get to print the actual speeches from the secession convention so we can get our information straight from the horse's mouth. It's always convenient when you can use actual documents to support your arguments rather than relying on the internet.

You're welcome. Since the matter seems settled, I'll hold off on pasting secession declarations and speeches from the Virginia secession convention.

Duh, yes.

You do realize the south seceded specifically to preserve slavery?

No, it does not necessarily make you racist, but if you truly know the origins of the flag you should understand why the flag is offensive to so many.

I, being a Richlands fan, would not look forward to playing Graham again. However, I can't agree with the comment that Graham blew the game with Richlands. The G-men jumped out to an early lead at home, then were outscored 31-3 over the last 2 1/2 quarters. Richlands dominated the line of scrimmage and outscored them 17-0 in the second half. I don't think Richlands falling behind so early was all that surprising... considering Richlands had played Union the week before while Graham basically had a practice game (Tazewell). I'm sure Graham has improved and would be a significant obstacle should Richlands play them again..... but the implication that Graham put on the brakes after a quarter and a half, as a poster in another thread has implied, is a gross overstatement.

This board is biased towards Richlands regarding the poll. Abingdon should have obviously been voted number 1 at the start of the season.

If Graham is truly a 2A contender they will win this by 7+.

Running out of the I with Howie at tailback and Lowe at fullback could be an invaluable adjustment come playoff time. Howie only needs the slightest of openings.

Hence the need for a pregame "warm up." http://naturalsociety.com/marijuana-kills-cancer-cells-admits-the-u-s-national-cancer-institute/

How many times did the Blacksburg defense come up with a stop?

♨ï¸ðŸ‡ºðŸ‡¸

I'm not a Graham fan. I was asking a sincere question. That's it. I'm not a Graham fan. I was simply curious about how you reached your conclusion.

I'm curious. What makes you think Blacksburg is better than Graham? I'm assuming you also think Giles is better than Graham?

I'm not sure Graham is the overall more talented team. There is no doubt that they have an outstanding group of skill position players, but Richlands seemed to have a significant edge on the line of scrimmage. I didn't notice anyone on Graham's defensive front influence the game in any significant way. The two defensive tackles for Richlands absolutely controlled the line of scrimmage.

You're right. My chest thumping was a bit excessive. I allowed a comment about the officiating from one of my friends from Bluefield send me into taunt mode.

Shhhhh, better not to point out that Graham got outscored 31-3 over the last 35 minutes.

So do I. I stand by my assessment. You know Richlands thoroughly dominated the second half.

Richlands dominated the line of scrimmage. Everything Graham was able to do was due to an explosive player making a big play. Those plays dwindled as the game went on, Richlands played poorly and still won decisively. I believe a rematch would result in a more dominant Richlands victory. But that's just my opinion....