That SEC Shorts taping at the Grant Presidential Library…

Maroon Eagle

Well-known member
May 24, 2006
16,650
5,726
102
It’s part of a commercial for Visit Mississippi showcasing Starkville and Oxford that was posted this morning.

It’s on Facebook — just look for Visit Mississippi.

Unfortunately, I can’t link it but since it’s not really football related, it could be a good thing.

Haven’t seen it at other social media sites yet.

And I don’t really expect SEC Shorts to post it since it’s not an official skit.
 

greenbean.sixpack

Well-known member
Oct 6, 2012
6,461
5,083
113
It would be nice for Keenum to use his political influence to lobby for a "grant" to build proper presidential library that is also a mini civil war museum. Build it somewhere that folks could easily get to it and tour it, preferably near the Hunter Henry Abomination, I mean Center. Something to draw people in and another thing to do with kids/visitors on game day. We need attractions.
 

Leeshouldveflanked

Well-known member
Nov 12, 2016
11,343
5,234
113
It would be nice for Keenum to use his political influence to lobby for a "grant" to build proper presidential library that is also a mini civil war museum. Build it somewhere that folks could easily get to it and tour it, preferably near the Hunter Henry Abomination, I mean Center. Something to draw people in and another thing to do with kids/visitors on game day. We need attractions.
Keenum’s political influence went out the door with Bush.
 

8dog

Well-known member
Feb 23, 2008
12,476
3,432
113
My rec
It would be nice for Keenum to use his political influence to lobby for a "grant" to build proper presidential library that is also a mini civil war museum. Build it somewhere that folks could easily get to it and tour it, preferably near the Hunter Henry Abomination, I mean Center. Something to draw people in and another thing to do with kids/visitors on game day. We need attractions.
my recommendation was to have a museum like that with a bar when you leave instead of a gift shop with the theme “celebrate a victory over the rebels”
 

Maroon13

Well-known member
Sep 29, 2022
1,972
1,996
113
Hmmm, pretty typical review of both.

House divided here and spent to much time in both places in the past few years....I will say:

There is definitely different social classes of people at the games and towns of the two schools. There is a cross section of social classes. However they definitely have more money, preppy types. I can tell you they have many many parents of OOS students that have lots of money, that hang out ant the restaurant and bars and embrace the whole snobby uppity vibes. State is much more Mississippi and are more middle class down to earth people. Some of us embrace being rednecks. Which is why Hardy's rednecker needs to be played over and over pregame next Egg bowl.

Bars and restaurants and all that.... Oxford is just better marketed and centrally located in town but Starkville has just as much to offer in that department. Last game: I overheard a middle aged lady, Mo fan, ask the dude in the seat below for restaurant:bar recommendations. The dude told her Lil Doeys and Dave's. Come on man.... no. I later gave her Luva, Taste, Tyler, Harvey's, Guest Room and Rosie Baby's upper bar or Stagger or Hobies to watch a game.

Oxford the town definitely has more money. When you look at the new growth. Starkville just needs a plan to get more people in the area to stay and raise families there. All the growth at GTR is a step in that direction.

just my .02.
 
Last edited:

CochiseCowbell

Well-known member
Oct 29, 2012
11,628
5,599
113
I always thought that it was hilarious that Grant's presidential library was in Mississippi. He beat the south so bad they hung his championship banner in the loser's stadium. We are honestly lucky to have it. He is a great American.

He'd be entertaining to tailgate with as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: patdog

DesotoCountyDawg

Well-known member
Nov 16, 2005
22,753
10,653
113
Hmmm, pretty typical review of both.

House divided here and spent to much time in both places in the past few years....I will say:

There is definitely different social classes of people at the games and towns of the two schools. There is a cross section of social classes. However they definitely have more money, preppy types. I can tell you they have many many parents of OOS students that have lots of money, that hang out ant the restaurant and bars and embrace the whole snobby uppity vibes. State is much more Mississippi and are more middle class down to earth people. Some of us embrace being rednecks. Which is why Hardy's rednecker needs to be played over and over pregame next Egg bowl.

Bars and restaurants and all that.... Oxford is just better marketed and centrally located in town but Starkville has just as much to offer in that department. Last game: I overheard a middle aged lady, Mo fan, ask the dude in the seat below for restaurant:bar recommendations. The dude told her Lil Doeys and Dave's. Come on man.... no. I later gave her Luva, Taste, Tyler, Harvey's, Guest Room and Rosie Baby's upper bar or Stagger or Hobies to watch a game.

Oxford the town definitely has more money. When you look at the new growth. Starkville just needs a plan to get more people in the area to stay and raise families there. All the growth at GTR is a step in that direction.

just my .02.
The kid that lives across the street from us picked State over Ole Miss because he said when he visited Ole Miss/Oxford it felt like he was going out of state for college. When he came to tour campus he said it felt like home because everyone was from Mississippi. Of course that may or may not be appealing to some but that’s how he felt.
 

thekimmer

Well-known member
Aug 30, 2012
7,221
1,080
113
I always thought that it was hilarious that Grant's presidential library was in Mississippi. He beat the south so bad they hung his championship banner in the loser's stadium. We are honestly lucky to have it. He is a great American.
State has the grant library because of one man. History professor John Marzalek. I was not a history major but took his History of Sports in America course in the early 80s.
 

Walkthedawg

Well-known member
Oct 3, 2022
495
834
93
Grant saved the Union in the 1860s. He was a true American hero.
Makes you wonder what would be of the US if, at. Shiloh, that bullet that struck Sherman’s hand was in his chest and if it was Grant that caught a fatal bullet and not Johnston.

There was a lot of national consequential “what if” in those wet fields in the middle of nowhere TN in April of 1862.
 

patdog

Well-known member
May 28, 2007
49,293
13,539
113
Makes you wonder what would be of the US if, at. Shiloh, that bullet that struck Sherman’s hand was in his chest and if it was Grant that caught a fatal bullet and not Johnston.

There was a lot of national consequential “what if” in those wet fields in the middle of nowhere TN in April of 1862.
No question Grant's campaigns from Shiloh through Vicksburg won the war. It went on for another couple of years, but it was over after Vicksburg fell.
 
  • Like
Reactions: L4Dawg

Walkthedawg

Well-known member
Oct 3, 2022
495
834
93
No question Grant's campaigns from Shiloh through Vicksburg won the war. It went on for another couple of years, but it was over after Vicksburg fell.
Vicksburg falling was so devastating to the Confederacy’s war effort that I don’t see how it’s almost an afterthought when Civil War history is taught.

And if Grant was not at Shiloh, or that dumbass General Henry Halleck was on the field, the Union would have probably withdrawn the first night. It was even on the mind of Sherman when he went and spoke to Grant the night of the first day. Grant made it clear there would be a counter the next day. And that counter basically set into motion of the war in the west being over.
 
  • Like
Reactions: L4Dawg and patdog

Duke Humphrey

Well-known member
Oct 3, 2013
2,331
1,013
113
It would be nice for Keenum to use his political influence to lobby for a "grant" to build proper presidential library that is also a mini civil war museum. Build it somewhere that folks could easily get to it and tour it, preferably near the Hunter Henry Abomination, I mean Center. Something to draw people in and another thing to do with kids/visitors on game day. We need attractions.
He has and gotten $30m in funding to do so. Fundraising for the rest of the balance, but plan is to build on corner of Russell and 12
 

Darryl Steight

Well-known member
Sep 30, 2022
1,848
2,850
113
I always thought that it was hilarious that Grant's presidential library was in Mississippi. He beat the south so bad they hung his championship banner in the loser's stadium. We are honestly lucky to have it. He is a great American.
I enjoy thinking of it being in Starkville as a stick in the eye to the "rebels".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dawg84 and Dawgg

Dawgg

Well-known member
Sep 9, 2012
7,951
6,738
113
Somebody acting surprised that William Faulkner’s home is in Oxford is the least believable thing in this video. Outside of their weird antebellum worship and lasting association with Jim Crow laws, it’s their most defining characteristic.
 

patdog

Well-known member
May 28, 2007
49,293
13,539
113
Somebody acting surprised that William Faulkner’s home is in Oxford is the least believable thing in this video. Outside of their weird antebellum worship and lasting association with Jim Crow laws, it’s their most defining characteristic.
That whole thing has the look of something that was written by a tourism bureau and not by professionals. Guess I don't blame the guys for doing it though, I'm sure they got paid.
 

Dawgbite

Well-known member
Nov 1, 2011
6,380
4,999
113
I’m not sure that I would consider Grant a Great American or a Great tactical General. He was the right man at the right time in history. Grant was a failure at every thing he tried prior to the war and Grants presidental administration has been considered the most corrupt and inept administration in history. Resent administrations have challenged that moniker but only time will tell if they’ve surpassed it. What made Grant successful during the war was his understanding that it was a war of attrition and the north had more lives to sacrifice vs the more sparsly populated south. He also wasn’t a political general and swayed by public opinion so he didn’t care about casualties as long as he was bleeding the south dry faster. This made Grant a great general and he probably shortened the war but his tactics came with a huge human cost.
 

greenbean.sixpack

Well-known member
Oct 6, 2012
6,461
5,083
113
I’m not sure that I would consider Grant a Great American or a Great tactical General. He was the right man at the right time in history. Grant was a failure at every thing he tried prior to the war and Grants presidental administration has been considered the most corrupt and inept administration in history. Resent administrations have challenged that moniker but only time will tell if they’ve surpassed it. What made Grant successful during the war was his understanding that it was a war of attrition and the north had more lives to sacrifice vs the more sparsly populated south. He also wasn’t a political general and swayed by public opinion so he didn’t care about casualties as long as he was bleeding the south dry faster. This made Grant a great general and he probably shortened the war but his tactics came with a huge human cost.
On thing I've always despised is the way southerners worship Lee and Davis. These men got hundreds of thousands of people killed in a war that was un-winnable from the start and fought over an ideal that they had to know was on its last legs (Lee didn't even believe in slavery).

Most wars are "rich man wars," but the CW took that to a new level. The common southern foot solider didn't own slaves and slavery actually drove his wages down.

Before someone pipes up with, "it wasn't about slavery," I suggest he/she reads this: https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states.

I'll give you a little primer from the 'Sip: "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization"
 

skipperDawg

Member
Dec 23, 2023
304
246
38
I’m not sure that I would consider Grant a Great American or a Great tactical General. He was the right man at the right time in history. Grant was a failure at every thing he tried prior to the war and Grants presidental administration has been considered the most corrupt and inept administration in history. Resent administrations have challenged that moniker but only time will tell if they’ve surpassed it. What made Grant successful during the war was his understanding that it was a war of attrition and the north had more lives to sacrifice vs the more sparsly populated south. He also wasn’t a political general and swayed by public opinion so he didn’t care about casualties as long as he was bleeding the south dry faster. This made Grant a great general and he probably shortened the war but his tactics came with a huge human cost.
But the Beverly hillbillies had a show about him. Granny shot him in the butt with oo buckshot
(Look it up)
 

leeinator

Well-known member
Feb 24, 2014
798
571
93
I always thought that it was hilarious that Grant's presidential library was in Mississippi. He beat the south so bad they hung his championship banner in the loser's stadium. We are honestly lucky to have it. He is a great American.
Met some some BAMA folk after a game years ago and told them about the Grant Library and they told me to tell him to go F' himself while they gave me the Double Birdie signs. I took it from that ole' Ulysses wasn't on their Christmas card list.
 

Dawgbite

Well-known member
Nov 1, 2011
6,380
4,999
113
On thing I've always despised is the way southerners worship Lee and Davis. These men got hundreds of thousands of people killed in a war that was un-winnable from the start and fought over an ideal that they had to know was on its last legs (Lee didn't even believe in slavery).

Most wars are "rich man wars," but the CW took that to a new level. The common southern foot solider didn't own slaves and slavery actually drove his wages down.

Before someone pipes up with, "it wasn't about slavery," I suggest he/she reads this: https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states.

I'll give you a little primer from the 'Sip: "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization"
I never mentioned Lee nor Davis much less worshipped them. Who’s the better general, Lee or Grant, has been debated for 150 years. If I wanted to win a battle, I’d pick Lee. If I wanted to win a war, I’d pick Grant. Lee had the uncanny ability to see a battle happening before it actually happened. He could do more with less personnel and support whereas Grant always has numerical superiority as well as infinitely more support. Lee failed to see or admit that the war was not winnable for the south. Grant saw the big picture and used the north’s industrial superiority and larger population to his advantage. I’ll agree with you that the portion of the South has far too long romanticized the Civil War as some kind of Lost Cause that should be honored.
 

greenbean.sixpack

Well-known member
Oct 6, 2012
6,461
5,083
113
I never mentioned Lee nor Davis much less worshipped them.
I wasn't referring to you or anyone in particular. I'm 60, growing up Lee and Davis were revered by many. With each generation, interest in the CW probably grows less and less.

Our parents were only a couple of generations removed from people who lived through the war. My mother's great grandfather was at Kenasaw Mountain, he was in his early teens so he couldn't enlist. Both his brothers died there, he helped push cannons up the mountain. He died a couple days before D Day, imagine what he saw living through three major wars.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: eckie1 and Dawg84

FormerBully

Well-known member
Sep 2, 2022
1,479
2,278
113
On thing I've always despised is the way southerners worship Lee and Davis. These men got hundreds of thousands of people killed in a war that was un-winnable from the start and fought over an ideal that they had to know was on its last legs (Lee didn't even believe in slavery).

Most wars are "rich man wars," but the CW took that to a new level. The common southern foot solider didn't own slaves and slavery actually drove his wages down.

Before someone pipes up with, "it wasn't about slavery," I suggest he/she reads this: https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states.

I'll give you a little primer from the 'Sip: "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization"
I love debating people on this and throwing out the seceding documents. They are often left speechless.
 

FormerBully

Well-known member
Sep 2, 2022
1,479
2,278
113
Yeah. I grew up believing the war was about states rights because that’s what people said. But there’s zero question what the war was about.
I was raised the same. I was blown away by all the truth I was not taught. We miss out on a lot of great American history when we believe the lost cause.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dawgg and patdog

leeinator

Well-known member
Feb 24, 2014
798
571
93
Robert E. Lee was without a doubt the best field general in the Civil War. The only thing that I found suprising is he had Washington D.C completely surrounded and decided not to overtake the U.S. Government and the Capital. Could have easily won the war if that would have happened. And it would be interesting to see what the following years would have yielded in American society.
 

Walkthedawg

Well-known member
Oct 3, 2022
495
834
93
On thing I've always despised is the way southerners worship Lee and Davis. These men got hundreds of thousands of people killed in a war that was un-winnable from the start and fought over an ideal that they had to know was on its last legs (Lee didn't even believe in slavery
I disagree about it being un-winnable from the start. It was very winnable for the south until July of 1863. The simultaneous defeat at Gettysburg and Vicksburg was the tip of the bell curve for the south in the war.

Lee’s aggressiveness and feeling of invincibility were assets in Virginia but liabilities in Pennsylvania. If Lee had listened to Jeb Stuart and have been happy with pinning the Union army on those hills in Gettysburg while opening the path directly to Washington…. Who knows. Lee could have turned toward Washington and the chase would have been on. And then if he inevitably clashed on ground more favorable to him close to Washington… again…. Who knows.

The war was not un-winnable if two or three changes could have been made and the outcome have been totally different.
 
Get unlimited access today.

Pick the right plan for you.

Already a member? Login