Civil War, not OT - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Civil War, not OT (/thread-12199.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Civil War, not OT (/thread-12199.html)
Civil War, not OT - Bruce Wang - 06-22-2016
Just finished Chuck Klosterman's new book, But What If We're Wrong. In it he says, "A key reason college football came into existence in the late 18th century was that veterans who'd fought in the Civil War feared the next generation of men would be soft and ill prepared for the building of a republic ('We gotta give these boys something to do," the veterans believed. 'Hell, they'll probably go through life without killing anyone!')."
Re: Civil War, not OT - Langdude - 06-22-2016
I guess there are worse things than concussions...
-m.
Re: Civil War, not OT - CowboyIndian - 06-22-2016
(06-22-2016, 04:39 PM)Publius link Wrote:"A key reason college football came into existence in the late 18th century was that veterans who'd fought in the Civil War .....
He's giving me reason to doubt everything else he says. Or he has no editor, which may be equally ill-considered.
Re: Civil War, not OT - martyup - 06-22-2016
(06-22-2016, 07:12 PM)CowboyIndian link Wrote:[quote author=Publius link=topic=15228.msg165420#msg165420 date=1466638748]
"A key reason college football came into existence in the late 18th century was that veterans who'd fought in the Civil War .....
He's giving me reason to doubt everything else he says. Or he has no editor, which may be equally ill-considered.
[/quote]
Giving Publius the benefit of the doubt, he did put the statement in quotes. Perhaps the author of the book made the error? ::)
Re: Civil War, not OT - yvonne - 06-22-2016
Well, the two sides used to steal cannons and other American War of Independence armaments, but that's about the only war relationship that I've ever heard about.
http://www.scarletknights.com/sports/m-footbl/archive/first-game.html
Re: Civil War, not OT - CowboyIndian - 06-22-2016
(06-22-2016, 07:35 PM)martyup link Wrote:He's giving me reason to doubt everything else he says. Or he has no editor, which may be equally ill-considered.
Giving Publius the benefit of the doubt, he did put the statement in quotes. Perhaps the author of the book made the error? ::)
I was referring to the author.
Re: Civil War, not OT - yvonne - 06-22-2016
(06-22-2016, 09:07 PM)CowboyIndian link Wrote:[quote author=martyup link=topic=15228.msg165430#msg165430 date=1466649302]
He's giving me reason to doubt everything else he says. Or he has no editor, which may be equally ill-considered.
Giving Publius the benefit of the doubt, he did put the statement in quotes. Perhaps the author of the book made the error? ::)
I was referring to the author.
[/quote]
I knew that. Folks on here don't attack one another.
Re: Civil War, not OT - Bruce Wang - 06-23-2016
I'm perfectly OK with getting attacked by CI, because when it's happened before it was hilarious.