Rev, you sure that wasn't Washington and Lee? We had a huge cheating scandal in the early 50's that led to de-emphasis on all sports

---------------------------------------------
--- DeadeyeDirk wrote:

For what it's worth, the big rumor now is that Miami has decided that it's in their interest to move out of the ACC. We'll see if that's true or not.

The BIG12 has a meeting on January 29th with conference expansion as an agenda item. If this Miami rumor has any legs, something will happen not too far down the road from that meeting.

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

This rumor from the WVU fans is at least believable, especially given the statements coming from the Big 12.

FSU still has a shot at the Big Ten. It's not going with Miami. Clemson doesn't want the ACC to fall apart and knows it will get a Big 12 invite whenever it asks for one.

If the Big 12 really wanted to push for Clemson and FSU, it would invite Miami and Wake--the two schools who would actually go to the Big 12 that bookend FSU and Clemson. It probably forces the Big Ten into action, and if the Big Ten doesn't invite FSU right away, it might get nervous (although I don't know why) and take Clemson along with it to the Big 12.

---------------------------------------------
--- WesternStormer wrote:



Never having to play Maryland ever again is reason enough to not want Carolina to be in the Big 10.

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

Touche

---------------------------------------------
--- Carolina2009 wrote:


If UNC decides to go the Big Ten, the NC State would almost certainly get an invitation from the SEC. If NC State knows this, there's no chance they go to the Big 12 before seeing what UNC does.

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


First thing you've said that I 100% agree with.

This is why things have slowed down. Texas, Notre Dame, and UNC hold the keys to how this whole thing shakes out.

NCSU will absolutely lobby to hold the ACC together, trying to shame UNC into staying, UNLESS it's clear we are B1G bound- then they'll do everything they can to push us out so they can go SEC.
If UNC goes to the SEC with, most likely, UVA, then I think the B1G would be severely limited with it options, and would most likely settle for schools in large viewing areas: BC, Syracuse, Pitt, UConn? Obviously if ND wanted in, they get in ahead of any of those schools. But the B1G would happily lock down the Northeast.

I also think it likely that if UNC goes to the SEC, the B1G takes the Northeast schools (GT is not contiguous with the B1G membership), and the B12 offers the remaining southern ACC schools: FSU, Clemson, NCSU, VTech, Louisville, Georgia Tech. It is possible the B12 would also invite Miami, Wake, Cincy and Memphis. This would give the B12 significant overlap with the SEC, which seems to be a goal.

I still think it possible that UNC and UVA lobby to bring Duke with them, and if it meant getting UNC AND UVA, I think the SEC would bite. That gets the SEC to 17... an odd number... so they'd need an additional 1-3 to get even.

I also think that if the B12 takes schools that UT and OU aren't thrilled about, they could head west, with some combination of OKST/TTech/KU/Kstate. However, if UT and OU get antsy, and see that UNC, Duke, and UVA have joined Vandy, UGA, and UF in the SEC, Texas may no longer hold their nose up at the SEC. A 17-member SEC could quickly go to 20 with UT, OU, and KU.

The B12 would find 3 replacements quickly in BYU, Tulane, and SMU.

That leaves the PAC searching for members and the B1G, SEC, and B12 at 20.

Crazy, maybe. Possible? Sure, why not.

I don't think Wake will get an invite to the BIG12. That conference would most likely pursue Duke or NCST if either were available. If not they would skip North Carolina all together.

I think they would probably want these teams in this order:

Notre Dame, FSU, Miami, GT, VT, Clemson, Duke, NCST, Louisville

Obviously ND will tell them to pound sand. And if FSU or GT get BIG10 invites they are gone as well. VT will go SEC if the SEC fails to get either UNC/Duke or UNC/UVA. There are numerous ways this could all turn out if dominos really do begin to fall.

I just don't relate to 'proud' or 'not proud' as far as my ancestors 150 years ago ...... the facts of history are what they are ..... many people who in their time and place would have been considered honorable people participated in and enjoyed the fruits of the slave labor system of the South - it was a different time and place .......

I have a number of friends in the Sons of Confederate Veterans which as an organization traffics in a highly distorted and romanticized history of secession and the Civil War that would be unrecognizable to the people living at that time ....... I just don't get it .......

my great grandfather was a soldier in the Bethel Regiment - 11th NC Volunteers ..... he was right in the center of Pickett's Charge at Gettysburg ...... and that's an interesting tid-bit to know, but his participation doesn't change the fact that Pickett's Charge was an unmitigated disaster for the Confederate Army ........



if you want to embrace the Lost Cause view of Southern Heritage -- here's a bit of it for you to put your arms around ......

from Edw. Pollard - "The Lost Cause" ..... publ. 1866 (Pollard was a prominent Richmond newspaper editor):

"The North naturally found or imagined in slavery the leading cause of the distinctive civilization of the South, its higher sentimentalism, and its superior refinements of scholarship and manners. It revenged itself on the cause, diverted its envy in an attack upon slavery, and defamed the institution as the relic of barbarism and the sum of all villainies. But, whatever may have been the defamation of the institution of slavery, no man can write its history without recognizing contributions and naming prominent results beyond the domain of controversy. It bestowed on the world's commerce in a half-century a single product whose annual value was two hundred millions of dollars. It founded a system of industry by which labour and capital were identified in interest, and capital therefore protected labour. It exhibited the picture of a land crowned with abundance, where starvation was unknown, where order was preserved by an unpaid police; and where many fertile regions accessible only to the labour of the African were brought into usefulness, and blessed the world with their productions.

We shall not enter upon the discussion of the moral question of slavery. But we may suggest a doubt here whether that odious term "slavery," which has been so long imposed, by the exaggeration of Northern writers, upon the judgment and sympathies of the world, is properly applied to that system of servitude in the South which was really the mildest in the world; which did not rest on acts of debasement and disenfranchisement, but elevated the African, and was in the interest of human improvement; and which, by the law of the land, protected the negro in life and limb, and in many personal rights, and, by the practice of the system, bestowed upon him a sum of individual indulgences, which made him altogether the most striking type in the world of cheerfulness and contentment. ....."


it's hard to pick out just one favorite gem from the above ..... maybe the bit about how the slave system "by which labour and capital were identified in interest" (ie, had the same interests) ......


---------------------------------------------
--- therabidrev wrote:

Bethel, Bethel, Bethel...

I'm reminded of the title of a book in my 6,000+ volume library, "First At Big Bethel, Furthest at Gettysburg, Last At Appomattox." Perhaps you've read it?

I speak from informed pride, not ignorance. You have good roots at Lenoir-Rhyne, which I greatly respect considering the fact that my parents were both L-R alumni, and I have no doubt that you are "good people," but we can agree to disagree here. I've also read extensively about the South, from 1584 to 2013, and unoffically majored in the study of her at Carolina. I took every regional course offered at UNC at the time. And I've also read outside the parameters of a politically correct liberal arts education. Yet I am still unashamed to be who and what I am. I don't have the stats in front of me, but historians who are much more gifted than either of us still differ on these details.

You personally may not have demonized the South, but I assure you that countless others have, as it is commonplace in higher ed to do so, and widely accepted as well. When I raised my son, I wanted him to have a balanced perspective, because historiography ALWAYS favors those who win the wars: the winners invariably write the history books. I choose not to live with the condemnation of generations past; I am only guilty of my sins, not the manifold sins of others, and to assume otherwise is to minimize the sacrifice of The One Who Bore My Sins and exalt myself. When I literally wash the feet of African-Americans and "people from the wrong side of Mason-Dixon," I do so out of genuine Christian love and humility, not guilt.

Yet I still get goosebumps when I hear Dixie. So, shoot me...

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

Bethel, I usually agree with what you write, and understand everything you are saying. Slavery was a part of the economy of the South, which was, at the time, superior to that of the North. Rev is correct.

As for scholarship, there are just as many writers who defend the South as those who like to pontificate on the "Lost Cause Myth."

The point of all of this is that the war was economic in origin and nature. The North was not fighting for a moral cause. Slavery was part of what gave the South economic advantages that the North tried to take advantage of, and when the South tried to leave because agreement was not possible, the North refused to allow the country to break in two.

So, maybe we can all be right. The North fought to hold the Union together, mainly because the North needed the agriculture of the South, but the South rebelled because of the policies of the North toward's its way of life and its successes. The North did not fight to "free the slaves," but that was the end result. It served to remove a significant economic advantage.

The North likes to massage its own history to justify the war as some moral crusade when it really wasn't. The Emancipation proclamation could have been made before the war, or on the first day. And it could have freed all the slaves, not just the ones still under confederate control. These inconvenient facts surrounding one of the most important decrees in American history make it uncomfortable for people who want to believe everything was so black and white- that the North was good and the South was evil. Like now, where liberals say conservatives are racist/bigoted/homophobic whatever. You just can't generalize because it's not that simple.

You can quote all the books you'd like, but the South resented the North and the North resented the South. Kinda like how we vote red or blue and see very similar lines on the map most elections.


As for the realignment- tradition is important, not 150 year old history that reflects a terrible and regrettable portion of our collective story.
UNC was once part of the Southern conference, and has real competitive history with some SEC schools. That really was the only point before this conversation got way off topic.

Hopefully we can get back to laughing at the WVU/B12/NCSux trolls and stop fighting with each other.

GO HEELS. GO AMERICA.





---------------------------------------------
--- BethelRegiment wrote:

I just don't relate to 'proud' or 'not proud' as far as my ancestors 150 years ago ...... the facts of history are what they are ..... many people who in their time and place would have been considered honorable people participated in and enjoyed the fruits of the slave labor system of the South - it was a different time and place .......

I have a number of friends in the Sons of Confederate Veterans which as an organization traffics in a highly distorted and romanticized history of secession and the Civil War that would be unrecognizable to the people living at that time ....... I just don't get it .......

my great grandfather was a soldier in the Bethel Regiment - 11th NC Volunteers ..... he was right in the center of Pickett's Charge at Gettysburg ...... and that's an interesting tid-bit to know, but his participation doesn't change the fact that Pickett's Charge was an unmitigated disaster for the Confederate Army ........



if you want to embrace the Lost Cause view of Southern Heritage -- here's a bit of it for you to put your arms around ......

from Edw. Pollard - "The Lost Cause" ..... publ. 1866 (Pollard was a prominent Richmond newspaper editor):

"The North naturally found or imagined in slavery the leading cause of the distinctive civilization of the South, its higher sentimentalism, and its superior refinements of scholarship and manners. It revenged itself on the cause, diverted its envy in an attack upon slavery, and defamed the institution as the relic of barbarism and the sum of all villainies. But, whatever may have been the defamation of the institution of slavery, no man can write its history without recognizing contributions and naming prominent results beyond the domain of controversy. It bestowed on the world's commerce in a half-century a single product whose annual value was two hundred millions of dollars. It founded a system of industry by which labour and capital were identified in interest, and capital therefore protected labour. It exhibited the picture of a land crowned with abundance, where starvation was unknown, where order was preserved by an unpaid police; and where many fertile regions accessible only to the labour of the African were brought into usefulness, and blessed the world with their productions.

We shall not enter upon the discussion of the moral question of slavery. But we may suggest a doubt here whether that odious term "slavery," which has been so long imposed, by the exaggeration of Northern writers, upon the judgment and sympathies of the world, is properly applied to that system of servitude in the South which was really the mildest in the world; which did not rest on acts of debasement and disenfranchisement, but elevated the African, and was in the interest of human improvement; and which, by the law of the land, protected the negro in life and limb, and in many personal rights, and, by the practice of the system, bestowed upon him a sum of individual indulgences, which made him altogether the most striking type in the world of cheerfulness and contentment. ....."


it's hard to pick out just one favorite gem from the above ..... maybe the bit about how the slave system "by which labour and capital were identified in interest" (ie, had the same interests) ......


---------------------------------------------
--- therabidrev wrote:

Bethel, Bethel, Bethel...

I'm reminded of the title of a book in my 6,000+ volume library, "First At Big Bethel, Furthest at Gettysburg, Last At Appomattox." Perhaps you've read it?

I speak from informed pride, not ignorance. You have good roots at Lenoir-Rhyne, which I greatly respect considering the fact that my parents were both L-R alumni, and I have no doubt that you are "good people," but we can agree to disagree here. I've also read extensively about the South, from 1584 to 2013, and unoffically majored in the study of her at Carolina. I took every regional course offered at UNC at the time. And I've also read outside the parameters of a politically correct liberal arts education. Yet I am still unashamed to be who and what I am. I don't have the stats in front of me, but historians who are much more gifted than either of us still differ on these details.

You personally may not have demonized the South, but I assure you that countless others have, as it is commonplace in higher ed to do so, and widely accepted as well. When I raised my son, I wanted him to have a balanced perspective, because historiography ALWAYS favors those who win the wars: the winners invariably write the history books. I choose not to live with the condemnation of generations past; I am only guilty of my sins, not the manifold sins of others, and to assume otherwise is to minimize the sacrifice of The One Who Bore My Sins and exalt myself. When I literally wash the feet of African-Americans and "people from the wrong side of Mason-Dixon," I do so out of genuine Christian love and humility, not guilt.

Yet I still get goosebumps when I hear Dixie. So, shoot me...

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

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

---------------------------------------------
--- Heel2K wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- Carolina2009 wrote:


If UNC decides to go the Big Ten, the NC State would almost certainly get an invitation from the SEC. If NC State knows this, there's no chance they go to the Big 12 before seeing what UNC does.

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


First thing you've said that I 100% agree with.

This is why things have slowed down. Texas, Notre Dame, and UNC hold the keys to how this whole thing shakes out.

NCSU will absolutely lobby to hold the ACC together, trying to shame UNC into staying, UNLESS it's clear we are B1G bound- then they'll do everything they can to push us out so they can go SEC.
If UNC goes to the SEC with, most likely, UVA, then I think the B1G would be severely limited with it options, and would most likely settle for schools in large viewing areas: BC, Syracuse, Pitt, UConn? Obviously if ND wanted in, they get in ahead of any of those schools. But the B1G would happily lock down the Northeast.

I also think it likely that if UNC goes to the SEC, the B1G takes the Northeast schools (GT is not contiguous with the B1G membership), and the B12 offers the remaining southern ACC schools: FSU, Clemson, NCSU, VTech, Louisville, Georgia Tech. It is possible the B12 would also invite Miami, Wake, Cincy and Memphis. This would give the B12 significant overlap with the SEC, which seems to be a goal.

I still think it possible that UNC and UVA lobby to bring Duke with them, and if it meant getting UNC AND UVA, I think the SEC would bite. That gets the SEC to 17... an odd number... so they'd need an additional 1-3 to get even.

I also think that if the B12 takes schools that UT and OU aren't thrilled about, they could head west, with some combination of OKST/TTech/KU/Kstate. However, if UT and OU get antsy, and see that UNC, Duke, and UVA have joined Vandy, UGA, and UF in the SEC, Texas may no longer hold their nose up at the SEC. A 17-member SEC could quickly go to 20 with UT, OU, and KU.

The B12 would find 3 replacements quickly in BYU, Tulane, and SMU.

That leaves the PAC searching for members and the B1G, SEC, and B12 at 20.

Crazy, maybe. Possible? Sure, why not.

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

Yes, crazy, lol.

I think there is about a 5% chance that UVa goes to the SEC. Why would they? Their football team isn't in any position to compete, basketball would suffer, and their soccer and lacrosse teams (which really, really matter in Charlottesville) would have no home. It wouldn't make sense for them academically or athletically. Oh, and UVa's president has Big Ten ties. Not to mention, everyone from MrSEC to our Ohio State visitors are saying that UVa is a virtual lock to go to the Big Ten.

If UNC goes to the SEC, it will almost certainly be with Duke (I doubt that we'd go with Va Tech).

How this whole thing shakes out really depends on UNC's decision.

I think he's as full of it as anyone else here, but it's at least interesting and can be quickly proved or disproved:


The Dude of WV ‏@theDudeofWV
Sources tell me the B1G moves on the ACC next week. SEC also on the brink.


If there is a risk that the Big 12 is intending to do something at their meeting in 2 weeks, it's at least conceivable that the Big Ten would want to extend their invitations before then.

UVA and UNC are more of a pair than UNC and Duke, historically and culturally. UNC and Duke are valuable as a marketing tool for a few basketball games, but UNC and UVA deliver the flagship schools of the two southern states not currently represented in the SEC.

With the addition of UNC and UVA, along with potentially Duke, it is likely that other schools in the SEC would develop their olympic sports. The SEC has publicly discussed developing their olympic sports, using their football treasure money to fund them, along with vast improvements the schools are making in facilities to improve research and scholarship.

The UVA to the B1G rumors could be true. UNC, UVA, Duke, and GT to the B1G would give the B1G a nice window into the South. Clemson and FSU might be considered just to take the meat of the ACC and keep the ACC schools happy and keep them out of the B12 and SEC.

That all being said, UVA is still old South. UNC and UVA have been cooperating since the mid-1800s. They have been playing football since the 1870s. Unlike most of these other players, tradition and loyalty are still real concepts in this case.

If moving is in the cards, I would bet UNC and UVA are working closely together to analyze their best option. And it is very possible Duke is being included in those discussions.




---------------------------------------------
--- Carolina2009 wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- Heel2K wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- Carolina2009 wrote:


If UNC decides to go the Big Ten, the NC State would almost certainly get an invitation from the SEC. If NC State knows this, there's no chance they go to the Big 12 before seeing what UNC does.

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


First thing you've said that I 100% agree with.

This is why things have slowed down. Texas, Notre Dame, and UNC hold the keys to how this whole thing shakes out.

NCSU will absolutely lobby to hold the ACC together, trying to shame UNC into staying, UNLESS it's clear we are B1G bound- then they'll do everything they can to push us out so they can go SEC.
If UNC goes to the SEC with, most likely, UVA, then I think the B1G would be severely limited with it options, and would most likely settle for schools in large viewing areas: BC, Syracuse, Pitt, UConn? Obviously if ND wanted in, they get in ahead of any of those schools. But the B1G would happily lock down the Northeast.

I also think it likely that if UNC goes to the SEC, the B1G takes the Northeast schools (GT is not contiguous with the B1G membership), and the B12 offers the remaining southern ACC schools: FSU, Clemson, NCSU, VTech, Louisville, Georgia Tech. It is possible the B12 would also invite Miami, Wake, Cincy and Memphis. This would give the B12 significant overlap with the SEC, which seems to be a goal.

I still think it possible that UNC and UVA lobby to bring Duke with them, and if it meant getting UNC AND UVA, I think the SEC would bite. That gets the SEC to 17... an odd number... so they'd need an additional 1-3 to get even.

I also think that if the B12 takes schools that UT and OU aren't thrilled about, they could head west, with some combination of OKST/TTech/KU/Kstate. However, if UT and OU get antsy, and see that UNC, Duke, and UVA have joined Vandy, UGA, and UF in the SEC, Texas may no longer hold their nose up at the SEC. A 17-member SEC could quickly go to 20 with UT, OU, and KU.

The B12 would find 3 replacements quickly in BYU, Tulane, and SMU.

That leaves the PAC searching for members and the B1G, SEC, and B12 at 20.

Crazy, maybe. Possible? Sure, why not.

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

Yes, crazy, lol.

I think there is about a 5% chance that UVa goes to the SEC. Why would they? Their football team isn't in any position to compete, basketball would suffer, and their soccer and lacrosse teams (which really, really matter in Charlottesville) would have no home. It wouldn't make sense for them academically or athletically. Oh, and UVa's president has Big Ten ties. Not to mention, everyone from MrSEC to our Ohio State visitors are saying that UVa is a virtual lock to go to the Big Ten.

If UNC goes to the SEC, it will almost certainly be with Duke (I doubt that we'd go with Va Tech).

How this whole thing shakes out really depends on UNC's decision.

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

---------------------------------------------
--- Heel2K wrote:

UVA and UNC are more of a pair than UNC and Duke, historically and culturally. UNC and Duke are valuable as a marketing tool for a few basketball games, but UNC and UVA deliver the flagship schools of the two southern states not currently represented in the SEC.

With the addition of UNC and UVA, along with potentially Duke, it is likely that other schools in the SEC would develop their olympic sports. The SEC has publicly discussed developing their olympic sports, using their football treasure money to fund them, along with vast improvements the schools are making in facilities to improve research and scholarship.

The UVA to the B1G rumors could be true. UNC, UVA, Duke, and GT to the B1G would give the B1G a nice window into the South. Clemson and FSU might be considered just to take the meat of the ACC and keep the ACC schools happy and keep them out of the B12 and SEC.

That all being said, UVA is still old South. UNC and UVA have been cooperating since the mid-1800s. They have been playing football since the 1870s. Unlike most of these other players, tradition and loyalty are still real concepts in this case.

If moving is in the cards, I would bet UNC and UVA are working closely together to analyze their best option. And it is very possible Duke is being included in those discussions.

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

I agree with everything you just said, except that I don't think any of it leads to UVa going to the SEC. I think the SEC would love to have them, but I don't think UVa wants the SEC.

---------------------------------------------
--- Heel2K wrote:

UVA and UNC are more of a pair than UNC and Duke, historically and culturally. UNC and Duke are valuable as a marketing tool for a few basketball games, but UNC and UVA deliver the flagship schools of the two southern states not currently represented in the SEC.

With the addition of UNC and UVA, along with potentially Duke, it is likely that other schools in the SEC would develop their olympic sports. The SEC has publicly discussed developing their olympic sports, using their football treasure money to fund them, along with vast improvements the schools are making in facilities to improve research and scholarship.

The UVA to the B1G rumors could be true. UNC, UVA, Duke, and GT to the B1G would give the B1G a nice window into the South. Clemson and FSU might be considered just to take the meat of the ACC and keep the ACC schools happy and keep them out of the B12 and SEC.

That all being said, UVA is still old South. UNC and UVA have been cooperating since the mid-1800s. They have been playing football since the 1870s. Unlike most of these other players, tradition and loyalty are still real concepts in this case.

If moving is in the cards, I would bet UNC and UVA are working closely together to analyze their best option. And it is very possible Duke is being included in those discussions.

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

Well, if BIG10 goes next week there are only three choices: UVA/UNC, UVA/GT, or UNC/GT.

If UNC goes to the BIG10, SEC goes VT/NCST. If UNC goes SEC, it will be UNC/Duke.

This will be interesting...

---------------------------------------------
--- DeadeyeDirk wrote:


Well, if BIG10 goes next week there are only three choices: UVA/UNC, UVA/GT, or UNC/GT.

If UNC goes to the BIG10, SEC goes VT/NCST. If UNC goes SEC, it will be UNC/Duke.

This will be interesting...

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

It's possible that the Big Ten could go for all 4 (UNC, Duke, UVa, Ga Tech) at once.

Heel2K wrote:

Bethel, I usually agree with what you write, and understand everything you are saying. Slavery was a part of the economy of the South, which was, at the time, superior to that of the North. Rev is correct.
-----------------------------


Superior in what way ?

Personal income per capita by region as a percentage of US average -1860 ... Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History:

Northeast.............139 %
West...................68 %
South .................72 %

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


Heel2K wrote:

So, maybe we can all be right. The North fought to hold the Union together, mainly because the North needed the agriculture of the South .............
----------------------------

why would separation of the North and South into two separate countries make such a tremendous difference simply in terms of the ability of the North to buy Southern agricultural output ? ...... a lot of the South's cotton output was sold internationally to Gr. Britain .....

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


Heel2K wrote:

The North likes to massage its own history to justify the war as some moral crusade when it really wasn't.

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

I would refer you to Lincoln's First Inaugural Address and Gettysburg Address regarding the implication for Southern secession in terms of the whole viability of the concept of democratic self government ....... if you don't think the democratic form of government is worth preserving than perhaps this wouldn't be a 'moral' issue for you ....... for Lincoln it was a question of whether --> "government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

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



Heel2K wrote:

The Emancipation proclamation could have been made before the war, or on the first day. And it could have freed all the slaves, not just the ones still under confederate control. These inconvenient facts surrounding one of the most important decrees in American history make it uncomfortable for people who want to believe everything was so black and white- that the North was good and the South was evil.

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

1) what would have been the conceivable legal basis for an Emancipation Proclamation (EP) before the War ? ........ in an earlier post I quoted Lincoln's First Inaugural Address where he attempted to reassure the remaining Southern and Border states which had not yet seceded that there was no legal basis for interfering with slavery in the Southern states and he had no intention of doing so ........remember the EP was a unilateral act by Lincoln - not a law passed by Congress or a Constitutional Amendment .......

Lincoln's legal justification for the EP was under his presumed war powers as military commander in chief .... hence, the limitation of the EP to the Southern states then in rebellion ........

2) even after the War began Lincoln had to tread softly on the question of slavery in the existing states in order to keep Kentucky, Missouri and Maryland from joining their fellow slaves states as part of the Southern rebellion ........

3) the Republicans (Lincoln) were not an abolitionist (immediate end to slavery) party ..... the Republican platform regarding slavery in the 1860 concerned Federal power with regard to allowing slavery in the territories ..... the South (probably with justification) and the Republicans (mostly left unsaid) viewed this policy as central to an inevitable long-term squeeze out of slavery - not as immediate abolition ....... so the South got out while the getting was good .....

4) the fact that slavery is morally abhorrent in the 21st century doesn't change the facts of the 19th century ........ I don't condemn people in the 19th century by 21st century mores ...... and you shouldn't feel compelled to grasp for some fairy tale version of history simply to make your 19th century ancestors appear more palatable by contemporary values ........

-------------------------------------------------- -----------------
Heel2K wrote:

The Emancipation proclamation could have been made before the war, or on the first day. And it could have freed all the slaves, not just the ones still under confederate control. These inconvenient facts surrounding one of the most important decrees in American history make it uncomfortable for people who want to believe everything was so black and white- that the North was good and the South was evil.

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

1) what would have been the conceivable legal basis for an Emancipation Proclamation (EP) before the War ? ........ in an earlier post I quoted Lincoln's First Inaugural Address where he attempted to reassure the remaining Southern and Border states which had not yet seceded that there was no legal basis for interfering with slavery in the Southern states and he had no intention of doing so ........remember the EP was a unilateral act by Lincoln - not a law passed by Congress or a Constitutional Amendment .......

Lincoln's legal justification for the EP was under his presumed war powers as military commander in chief .... hence, the limitation of the EP to the Southern states then in rebellion ........

2) even after the War began Lincoln had to tread softly on the question of slavery in the existing states in order to keep Kentucky, Missouri and Maryland from joining their fellow slaves states as part of the Southern rebellion ........

3) the Republicans (Lincoln) were not an abolitionist (immediate end to slavery) party ..... the Republican platform regarding slavery in the 1860 concerned Federal power with regard to allowing slavery in the territories ..... the South (probably with justification) and the Republicans (mostly left unsaid) viewed this policy as central to an inevitable long-term squeeze out of slavery - not as immediate abolition ....... so the South got out while the getting was good .....

4) the fact that slavery is morally abhorrent in the 21st century doesn't change the facts of the 19th century ........ I don't condemn people in the 19th century by 21st century mores ...... and you shouldn't feel compelled to grasp for some fairy tale version of history simply to make your 19th century ancestors appear more palatable by contemporary values ........

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



None of what you said disputes the point that the war was not fought because the North wanted to end slavery. Slavery was ended as a product of the war, but as you said, The North didn't say "end slavery or else" and Congress hadn't taken up the cause either.

---------------------------------------------
--- Carolina2009 wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- DeadeyeDirk wrote:


Well, if BIG10 goes next week there are only three choices: UVA/UNC, UVA/GT, or UNC/GT.

If UNC goes to the BIG10, SEC goes VT/NCST. If UNC goes SEC, it will be UNC/Duke.

This will be interesting...

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

It's possible that the Big Ten could go for all 4 (UNC, Duke, UVa, Ga Tech) at once.

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

Sounding like Miami and Clemson to the Big12. No mention of FSU. Could FSU be getting a B1G invite? The state of Florida is tuff to pass up.

1) Lincoln and the Republican Party were not abolitionists - ie, people who wanted an immediate end to slavery ..... Abolitionism (ie, John Brown) was viewed as a radical and highly disruptive idea ..... and would require (as was subsequently done) a Constitutional Amendment .....


2) the Republican platform in 1860 and the evolution of the slavery controversy by then revolved around the power of Congress to regulate/exclude slavery from Federal territories ...... without being discussed so publicly this policy - limiting the expansion of slavery - was viewed by people in both the North and the South as a way of locking in the inevitable long-term extinction of slavery at some point in the future ...... slavery would be limited to the then current South which was at the time and would become a smaller and smaller portion of the U.S. and thus Congress ........

so Lincoln and the Republicans did in some sense want to 'end slavery' ..... but only in some vague, long-term, indeterminate sense of the term ....... not in any sense of - let's fight this war now to end slavery now ........

if you're really interested to learn -- why then in 1862 - Lincoln changed course and adopted a policy - the Emancipation Proclamation - to free the slaves - at least in the South and at that time - then I highly recommend a recent book on the subject - Slotkin - "The Long Road to Antietam" ..... just a superb history of the issue and the period ...... the gist of it is that the Emancipation Proclamation marked a sharp change in Northern war strategy towards an 'all-in', 'no turning back', 'no holds barred' program to win the War that wasn't there at the beginning ........ it took Lincoln a year (1861-1862) to realize that a more limited strategy -- just win a big battle or two to bring them to their senses and then they'll fold and we'll arrange the South's return to the Union -- that strategy wasn't going to work ........ the reason Lincoln didn't f*&k with slavery at the beginning is he wanted to make it easy for the South to return - and he didn't want to drive the Border States into the Confederacy .........


3) I have thus NEVER said that the North's immediate rationale for pressing the War with the South was for purpose of ending slavery right then and there ......

I have simply said that the question of slavery was at the heart of the conflict between the North and the South which was manifest at the beginning of the Nation, played out in numerous ways throughout the course of the first half of the 19th century, and ultimately transgressed into Southern secession and Civil War .......


4) while there were numerous conventional political issues between the North and South --- the nature of import taxes ... general economic concerns ... internal improvements ---- there are always 'issues' and there is no reason to believe any of these would prompt the breakup of the country .......

latter day apologists for the South and the Southern leadership - the Lost Cause school - downplayed the role of slavery in secession and elevated these more benign economic issues or more nebulous notions like 'State's Rights' as part of a campaign we would commonly call "covering your a$$" today ...... if you somehow emotionally identify with your ancestors and in some way your self worth is tied up in making your ancestors from 150 years ago not look so bad - then the Lost Cause Myth is there to help ........ if you don't care about that "Southern Heritage" stuff and simply want to understand what happened in the 19th century, there's no reason to buy their CYA b.s. ........

if you just read various Southern state resolutions issued in concert with secession in 1860/1861 - it is totally clear that protection of the slave agricultural system was what motivated Southern secession ....... and no - it doesn't necessarily follow from this that the North's initial reason for pursuing a war to defeat the Southern rebellion was grounded in a policy of immediate abolition of slavery ........


5) if you want to know why Lincoln pursued the War to unite or reunite the country - read his First Inaugural Address ...... in essence he asked the obvious question --- how can you ever have democratic government if the losing side always has the option of quitting when things (ie, the election of 1860) don't go its way ? .........




---------------------------------------------
--- Heel2K wrote:


None of what you said disputes the point that the war was not fought because the North wanted to end slavery. Slavery was ended as a product of the war, but as you said, The North didn't say "end slavery or else" and Congress hadn't taken up the cause either.

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

---------------------------------------------
--- WinchesterBUCK wrote:


Sounding like Miami and Clemson to the Big12. No mention of FSU. Could FSU be getting a B1G invite? The state of Florida is tuff to pass up.

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

Supposedly Clemson had the opportunity to jump to the Big 12 before with FSU but declined. I can't see why they would suddenly decide to go now with Miami unless defections to the Big Ten are imminent.

---------------------------------------------
--- WinchesterBUCK wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- Carolina2009 wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- DeadeyeDirk wrote:


Well, if BIG10 goes next week there are only three choices: UVA/UNC, UVA/GT, or UNC/GT.

If UNC goes to the BIG10, SEC goes VT/NCST. If UNC goes SEC, it will be UNC/Duke.

This will be interesting...

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

It's possible that the Big Ten could go for all 4 (UNC, Duke, UVa, Ga Tech) at once.

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

Sounding like Miami and Clemson to the Big12. No mention of FSU. Could FSU be getting a B1G invite? The state of Florida is tuff to pass up.

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

Miami to the Big 12 is just more of that hillbilly BS from butthurt WVA fans. I saw nothing on Miami's Scout site to indicate it was even being considered. And, no reputable national outlet has even made mention of it.

---------------------------------------------
--- Carolina2009 wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- WinchesterBUCK wrote:


Sounding like Miami and Clemson to the Big12. No mention of FSU. Could FSU be getting a B1G invite? The state of Florida is tuff to pass up.

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

Supposedly Clemson had the opportunity to jump to the Big 12 before with FSU but declined. I can't see why they would suddenly decide to go now with Miami unless defections to the Big Ten are imminent.

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

Dabo Swinney flat out said that Clemson going to the Big 12 would be a mistake. That the kids in their normal recruiting grounds have no desire to play in a southwestern-based conference.

---------------------------------------------
--- WesternStormer wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- Carolina2009 wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- WinchesterBUCK wrote:


Sounding like Miami and Clemson to the Big12. No mention of FSU. Could FSU be getting a B1G invite? The state of Florida is tuff to pass up.

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

Supposedly Clemson had the opportunity to jump to the Big 12 before with FSU but declined. I can't see why they would suddenly decide to go now with Miami unless defections to the Big Ten are imminent.

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

Dabo Swinney flat out said that Clemson going to the Big 12 would be a mistake. That the kids in their normal recruiting grounds have no desire to play in a southwestern-nased conference.

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

That tune will change when they are left standing in the ACC with WF, Cuse, and Pitt.

Like I stated before, i's are being dotted, t's crossed. We are getting close.

Look for UNC, UVA, GT, and one more to the B1G. Is it FSU, ND, or Duke? B1G will eventually be at 20 schools in time for the 2017 season.

SEC grabs VT and NC State soon after.

---------------------------------------------
--- WinchesterBUCK wrote:


Like I stated before, i's are being dotted, t's crossed. We are getting close.

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

Winchester, what is your source for this information? The imminence of the moves, I mean.

The lack of mental health care in the B10 footprint is obvious.

---------------------------------------------
--- Carolina2009 wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- WinchesterBUCK wrote:


Like I stated before, i's are being dotted, t's crossed. We are getting close.

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

Winchester, what is your source for this information? The imminence of the moves, I mean.

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

---------------------------------------------
--- Carolina2009 wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- Heel2K wrote:

UVA and UNC are more of a pair than UNC and Duke, historically and culturally. UNC and Duke are valuable as a marketing tool for a few basketball games, but UNC and UVA deliver the flagship schools of the two southern states not currently represented in the SEC.

With the addition of UNC and UVA, along with potentially Duke, it is likely that other schools in the SEC would develop their olympic sports. The SEC has publicly discussed developing their olympic sports, using their football treasure money to fund them, along with vast improvements the schools are making in facilities to improve research and scholarship.

The UVA to the B1G rumors could be true. UNC, UVA, Duke, and GT to the B1G would give the B1G a nice window into the South. Clemson and FSU might be considered just to take the meat of the ACC and keep the ACC schools happy and keep them out of the B12 and SEC.

That all being said, UVA is still old South. UNC and UVA have been cooperating since the mid-1800s. They have been playing football since the 1870s. Unlike most of these other players, tradition and loyalty are still real concepts in this case.

If moving is in the cards, I would bet UNC and UVA are working closely together to analyze their best option. And it is very possible Duke is being included in those discussions.

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

I agree with everything you just said, except that I don't think any of it leads to UVa going to the SEC. I think the SEC would love to have them, but I don't think UVa wants the SEC.

---------------------------------------------
You have absolutely no insight to UVA and provide nothing to this board but a continuing blather in support of protecting NCSU's singular escape clause from Conference USA. You at no point advocate any position that is in Carolina's best interests and are a plague on all things Tar Heel. WHY ISN"T THIS AGGIE TROLL BANNED?

---------------------------------------------
--- WesternStormer wrote:

Dabo Swinney flat out said that Clemson going to the Big 12 would be a mistake. That the kids in their normal recruiting grounds have no desire to play in a southwestern-nased conference.

---------------------------------------------
Yep, which is why the BIG12 would need NUMEROUS universities to join. Clemson recruits would not complain if GT, FSU, Miami, NCST, VT, and WVU were all in the conference together. The obvious problem though, is that no one wants to be the first to move. It takes a great leap of faith to go first. Thusfar no one has been inclined to do that.

---------------------------------------------
--- expatriateheel wrote:


You have absolutely no insight to UVA and provide nothing to this board but a continuing blather in support of protecting NCSU's singular escape clause from Conference USA. You at no point advocate any position that is in Carolina's best interests and are a plague on all things Tar Heel. WHY ISN"T THIS AGGIE TROLL BANNED?

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

lol, I was about to write an angry response until I saw who wrote it.

---------------------------------------------
--- Carolina2009 wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- WinchesterBUCK wrote:


Like I stated before, i's are being dotted, t's crossed. We are getting close.

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

Winchester, what is your source for this information? The imminence of the moves, I mean.

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

3 tOSU connections. 1 BoT, 2 big boosters. Mixed with what reputable posters/Insiders. Lots of pieces to the puzzle.

---------------------------------------------
--- WinchesterBUCK wrote:


3 tOSU connections. 1 BoT, 2 big boosters. Mixed with what reputable posters/Insiders. Lots of pieces to the puzzle.

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

Are you able to say what part of the information came from the BoT member? The immediacy? The schools involved?

i can't believe after 3 months people are still buying this....

---------------------------------------------
--- WinchesterBUCK wrote:

Like I stated before, i's are being dotted, t's crossed. We are getting close.

Look for UNC, UVA, GT, and one more to the B1G. Is it FSU, ND, or Duke? B1G will eventually be at 20 schools in time for the 2017 season.

SEC grabs VT and NC State soon after.

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

Exactly

---------------------------------------------
--- nasaHEEL wrote:

i can't believe after 3 months people are still buying this....

---------------------------------------------
--- WinchesterBUCK wrote:

Like I stated before, i's are being dotted, t's crossed. We are getting close.

Look for UNC, UVA, GT, and one more to the B1G. Is it FSU, ND, or Duke? B1G will eventually be at 20 schools in time for the 2017 season.

SEC grabs VT and NC State soon after.

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

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

If the ptb at UNC decide to move to the B1G the university will receive a chitstorm from the entire state of North Carolina. The people will not have it.

was this guy ever on the board at Kentucky ? ....... you know Kentucky - where Billy Donovan is head coach .......

---------------------------------------------
--- Carolina2009 wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- WinchesterBUCK wrote:


3 tOSU connections. 1 BoT, 2 big boosters. Mixed with what reputable posters/Insiders. Lots of pieces to the puzzle.

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

Are you able to say what part of the information came from the BoT member? The immediacy? The schools involved?

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

---------------------------------------------
--- deandisciple wrote:

If the ptb at UNC decide to move to the B1G the university will receive a chitstorm from the entire state of North Carolina. The people will not have it.

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

It would not be pretty, thats for sure.

Relax, the ACC is not going anywhere. As long as the ACC is viable, UNC is not going anywhere, either.

It'll get worse before it gets better...

---------------------------------------------
--- nasaHEEL wrote:

i can't believe after 3 months people are still buying this....

---------------------------------------------
--- WinchesterBUCK wrote:

Like I stated before, i's are being dotted, t's crossed. We are getting close.

Look for UNC, UVA, GT, and one more to the B1G. Is it FSU, ND, or Duke? B1G will eventually be at 20 schools in time for the 2017 season.

SEC grabs VT and NC State soon after.

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

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

I love this board.


The order of events really does matter. The thing most likely to cause a UNC move is the loss of a money school like FSU. Barring that, UNC is going to try to keep the ACC viable.

It is entirely possible UNC and UVA are conspiring together, with or without Duke. It is also possible that nothing is happening.

Miami, Wake, etc. might bolt if they are legitimately worried that UNC is actually leaving. Which is unlikely based only on WV/idiot message board chatter.

---------------------------------------------
--- Heel2K wrote:


None of what you said disputes the point that the war was not fought because the North wanted to end slavery. Slavery was ended as a product of the war, but as you said, The North didn't say "end slavery or else" and Congress hadn't taken up the cause either.

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

The north did not fight to abolish slavery, but the south definitely seceded to protect it.

This is the most likely catalyst, if there is one.
UNC isn't going to be the school that destroys the ACC.

If the B12 made a huge offer to create an eastern division:
FSU, Clemson, NCSU, VTech, Wake, Miami

I'd bet those schools would listen. And if any of the rumors of SEC/b12 collusion are true, this could very well happen. NCSU and VTech obviously would rather wait for the outside chance that the SEC is available, but Wake and Miami aren't going to have any other options.

Not to mention that Louisville and Cincy would jump at the chance to go to the B12.



B12 West:
Texas, TTech, Baylor, TCU, Oklahoma, Ok State, KU, Kstate, Iowa state (Tulane)
B12 East:
WVU, Cincy, Louisville, Miami, FSU, Clemson, NCSU, VTech, GTech, (Wake)


SEC West: LSU, Arky, TAMU, Ole Miss, MSST, Auburn, Bama, Mizzou, Vandy
SEC East: UK, UVA, UNC, Duke, USCe, UF, UGA, UTenn, UMD?

B1G West: Neb, Wisc, Minn, Iowa, NW, Purdue, Illinois, IU, MSU
B1G East: Rutgers, UConn, Cuse, Pitt, PSU, ND, OSU, Michigan, BC

PAC A: Wash, Wazzu, Oregon, Or state, Cal, Stanford, Boise, Colorado, Wyoming?
PAC B: UCLA, USC, Zona, ASU, UNLV, Nevada, Utah, BYU, New Mexico?


This is all for fun. Since most likely, the ACC isn't going anywhere. But it is fun to think about.







---------------------------------------------
--- DeadeyeDirk wrote:


---------------------------------------------
--- WesternStormer wrote:

Dabo Swinney flat out said that Clemson going to the Big 12 would be a mistake. That the kids in their normal recruiting grounds have no desire to play in a southwestern-nased conference.

---------------------------------------------
Yep, which is why the BIG12 would need NUMEROUS universities to join. Clemson recruits would not complain if GT, FSU, Miami, NCST, VT, and WVU were all in the conference together. The obvious problem though, is that no one wants to be the first to move. It takes a great leap of faith to go first. Thusfar no one has been inclined to do that.

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

---------------------------------------------
--- Heel2K wrote:

B12 West:
Texas, TTech, Baylor, TCU, Oklahoma, Ok State, KU, Kstate, Iowa state (Tulane)
B12 East:
WVU, Cincy, Louisville, Miami, FSU, Clemson, NCSU, VTech, GTech, (Wake)


SEC West: LSU, Arky, TAMU, Ole Miss, MSST, Auburn, Bama, Mizzou, Vandy
SEC East: UK, UVA, UNC, Duke, USCe, UF, UGA, UTenn, UMD?

B1G West: Neb, Wisc, Minn, Iowa, NW, Purdue, Illinois, IU, MSU
B1G East: Rutgers, UConn, Cuse, Pitt, PSU, ND, OSU, Michigan, BC

PAC A: Wash, Wazzu, Oregon, Or state, Cal, Stanford, Boise, Colorado, Wyoming?
PAC B: UCLA, USC, Zona, ASU, UNLV, Nevada, Utah, BYU, New Mexico?


This is all for fun. Since most likely, the ACC isn't going anywhere. But it is fun to think about.


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

If UNC ends up in the SEC, it probably looks something like this:

SEC East: [UNC, Duke, South Carolina, Tennessee] / [Florida, Georgia, Vanderbilt, Kentucky]
SEC West: [Alabama, Auburn, Ole Miss, Miss State] / [LSU, Texas A&M, Arkansas, Mizzou]

B1G A: [Florida State, Georgia Tech, UVa, Maryland, Penn State] / [Boston College, Rutgers, Ohio State, Notre Dame, Northwestern]
B1G B: [Michigan, Michigan State, Indiana, Purdue, Illinois] / [Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas]

Big 12 / ACC West: [Texas, Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU] / [Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas State, Iowa State]
Big 12 / ACC East: [Miami, Clemson, NC State, Wake Forest] / [Va Tech, West Virginia, Pitt, Louisville]

Pac-12 stands pat unless conferences with 16 or more teams can have four divisions and add a semifinal round before conference championship game.

To to it off someone broke out a couple of DudeFromWV tweets to make it even more absurd.

---------------------------------------------
--- nasaHEEL wrote:

i can't believe after 3 months people are still buying this....

---------------------------------------------
--- WinchesterBUCK wrote:

Like I stated before, i's are being dotted, t's crossed. We are getting close.

Look for UNC, UVA, GT, and one more to the B1G. Is it FSU, ND, or Duke? B1G will eventually be at 20 schools in time for the 2017 season.

SEC grabs VT and NC State soon after.

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

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

What is the dude's batting average?

Something like .022

He predicted a GT press conference announcing a move to the Big 10 six weeks ago. I AM STILL WAITING ON THAT PRESS CONFERENCE.

The fact anyone pays attention to this IDIOT is beyond me.

---------------------------------------------
--- Carolina2009 wrote:

I think he's as full of it as anyone else here, but it's at least interesting and can be quickly proved or disproved:


The Dude of WV ‏@theDudeofWV
Sources tell me the B1G moves on the ACC next week. SEC also on the brink.


If there is a risk that the Big 12 is intending to do something at their meeting in 2 weeks, it's at least conceivable that the Big Ten would want to extend their invitations before then.

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