Kid drank too much liquid too fast.

If he admitted it he knew it could be proven or worse.

Except he doesn’t run as part of a tandem. His having to scramble is because he doesn’t have the time or the WRs. Put Luck on the Seahawks and he’s sacked more than when the Rams got to him in Indy. What Luck couldn’t do Wilson does routinely. I’ve seen Wilson make the passes necessary to win but without the O line and WRs the offense is dialed back into rushing and his scrambling. And they win. Where we really disagree is your “minimize his weaknesses”. He doesn’t have any. And this year he has Graham.

• This reply was modified 9 years, 5 months ago by bnw.

Wilson ranked 12th? Wilson is easily top 5.

How would that work? Trial by transcript?

A virtual trial?

zn wrote:

bnw wrote:

Stanton exposed the Rams weakness but he didn’t last.

Stanton went out, though, because he got injured.

With Stanton at qb, Arz could maintain its momentum.
…

Not when they play the Rams twice a season.

With this post I did.

Imagine the crap storm he would have been in if it failed.

Mackeyser wrote:

You bring up an interesting point.

I don’t doubt that the rank and file soldier while actually fighting wasn’t fighting for the pocketbook for the Southern plantation owner any more than the modern Marine fights for Haliburton or Tyco.

That said, what I stated isn’t any less true. The southern states differed and argued with the northern states on a number of very contentious matters and NONE of them rose to the level where secession was remotely an option.

Consider that. NO OTHER ISSUE was so contentious that the SOUTH as a confederation of states would secede from the Union. Nothing was even close.

So, while “States Rights” is, in fact, the correct column heading under which war was waged, the ONLY States Right that was worth waging war? Slavery. It was a column with ONE entry.

Thus, in essence, they become equivalent. The distinction cannot be made between the States Rights argument and the Preservation of Slavery argument because there was NO OTHER States Right for which the Southern States would remotely consider seceding and waging war. Nothing.

So, while I do hear what you’re saying and I agree about the rank and file not being preoccupied with slavery while marching in crappy conditions or with musket balls flying past them or smelling gangrene or hearing a doctor perform grizzly amputations with a rudimentary bone saw, that does NOT preclude that those soldiers did NOT agree that the South should, in fact, be allowed slaves and believe in the institution of slavery and that fighting to defend that and the way of life that accompanied that was worth fighting for.

Of course the average foot soldier had little to no stake in reaping the rewards of the war, north or south.

Historically, they almost never do.

Then we disagree regarding states rights though you conceded the point. South Carolina was the first to secede and in their declaration of secession the issue of states rights was given greater weight than the issue of slavery.

Mackeyser wrote:

bnw… the ONLY States right that was so egregiously being violated that the South en masse decided that they had to SECEDE from the Union was Slavery.

This was NOT a matter of principle over a bunch of smaller matters. Heck, the Congress had already made in modern terms, ridiculous concessions toward the South, specifically the 3/5ths Compromise. They also agreed that new states would be admitted alternating free and slave in order to preserve the Union because and ONLY because… the ONLY issue SO important to the South that they would Secede…

WAS SLAVERY.

Really, it’s just not a matter of debate or opinion. It’s not for people to employ revisionist history or reframe it as if it’s still up for debate. The people AT THE TIME said loud and clear in unequivocal language that the SINGLE, SOLITARY reason for seceding was slavery. In their own words. In English.

That’s pretty much the end of the discussion. At this point, we can either take the Secessionists at their word… OR, call them liars and THEN prescribe other notions and motivations toward and onto them that do not align with their rather forceful and direct statements at the time.

I mean, that’s one way to go…

I’d rather just take them at their word. I mean, hundreds of thousands of Southerners died for those pretty direct words… one would think that a goodly number actually believed them. Oh, and the agrarian economy they relied on them pretty much demanded slavery considering they had no other way to achieve economies of scale like the North did with factories (not that they were bastions of worker rights, health, and safety)

They fought for states rights since the great majority did not own slaves. You confuse the mega farms of the wealthy at that time with the reality of the fighting man barely scraping by with a few acres and his family working the field.

Fighting for a ‘Lost Cause’

Reasons for risking life and limb varied, but they usually came down to four fundamentals: uphold state sovereignty, regional duty, group solidarity and protection of home and family.

The notion that the average Confederate waged war to preserve slavery is a tenuous one at best. Only 6 percent of Southerners owned slaves, and 3 percent of those owned the majority. Recruits themselves referred to the war as “a rich man’s war and a poor man’s fight.”

“Just as most Northerners did not fight to end slavery, most Southerners did not fight to preserve it,” wrote James I. Robertson, Jr. in Tenting Tonight.

“By and large, owning slaves was the privilege of the well-to-do. The rank and file of the Southern armies was composed of farmers and laborers who volunteered to protect home and everything dear from Northern invaders, to keep their traditions and be left alone.”

http://vaudc.org/confed_vets.html