Civil War Interactive Discussion Board Home
Home Search search Menu menu Not logged in - Login | Register


Lost Cause - General Civil War Talk - Civil War Talk - Civil War Interactive Discussion Board
 Moderated by: javal1 Page:  First Page Previous Page  1  2   
 New Topic   Reply   Printer Friendly 
 Rate Topic 
AuthorPost
 Posted: Fri Dec 8th, 2006 05:56 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
21st Post
David White
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location: Texas USA
Posts: 909
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Teasip is not a compliment, it harkens back to the days when the poor farmer's kids went to A&M and the rich society kids (teasippers) went to texas university (tu).  In some ways today, the kids at A&M are as much teasippers as the genuine article.

Bevo got his name when A&M students captured the castrated bovine and branded the score of the previous A&M victory on to his hide (see a picture at
http://www.utexas.edu/friends/graphics/wallpapers/BrandedBevo1024x768.jpg )


The teasippers altered the brand to spell Bevo, the brand of a then popular near beer and that is how Bevo came to be called Bevo.  Two years later they had a barbecue after the game and the A&M and teasippers feasted on the carcass of the steer pictured in the link above.

 



 Posted: Fri Dec 8th, 2006 06:50 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
22nd Post
Doc C
Member


Joined: Sun Oct 1st, 2006
Location:  Eastern Shore, Maryland USA
Posts: 822
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

David, thanks for the expert explanation of teasip/bevo. To Patty, regardless of Dave's previous post, my comment of teasip was not meant to be derogatory. David didn't know if you had heard of the tragic death of Alan Richard, author of Defense of Vicksburg: A Louisiana Chronicle and past president of the North Louisiana Civil War Roundtable.

Doc C



 Posted: Fri Dec 8th, 2006 06:53 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
23rd Post
Doc C
Member


Joined: Sun Oct 1st, 2006
Location:  Eastern Shore, Maryland USA
Posts: 822
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

The artlcle regarding his death in a vehicle crash is in today's shreveport times online version.

Doc



 Posted: Fri Dec 8th, 2006 10:57 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
24th Post
Widow
Member
 

Joined: Tue Sep 19th, 2006
Location: Oakton, Fairfax County, VA
Posts: 321
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

I think that's grotesque.  Not the brand, although it is a little too big to be humane.  But barbecuing the mascot.  He was a handsome animal.

What kind of school would have a STEER for a mascot?  Just what I'd expect from a bunch of Artists and Musicians.  No machismo there.

Now in the real Cowboy State, that bronc you see on the license plate is NOT repeat NOT a gelding.  Nor is the rider, whose name, by the way, is Cowboy Joe.  That old tune is still the fight song of the University of Wyoming Cowboys.  Except we changed the words "from Arizona" to "old Wyoming."  Sounds better that way in Laramie.

From your explanation, I've decided I'm not a teasip.  Hot chocolate, maybe.  Diet Dr. Pepper, for sure.  But not tea, and not sipped.

I wonder if the State of Wyoming gets royalty payments from that Dallas team, you know, for naming rights.

Patty



 Posted: Fri Dec 8th, 2006 11:18 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
25th Post
Doc C
Member


Joined: Sun Oct 1st, 2006
Location:  Eastern Shore, Maryland USA
Posts: 822
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Patty, that was great. Rally enjoy hearing comments about those people from TU and ATM. At least the mascot of Baylor is a bear, drinks Dr. Pepper. Dr. Pepper was invented in Waco. By the way, Baylor has been called Jurasalem on the Brazoos and ATM sing sing on the Brazoos. TU has been called numerous things which I'm too much of a gentleman to print.

Doc

Last edited on Fri Dec 8th, 2006 11:20 pm by Doc C



 Posted: Fri Dec 8th, 2006 11:20 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
26th Post
javal1
Grumpy Geezer


Joined: Thu Sep 1st, 2005
Location: Tennessee USA
Posts: 1503
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Ahem..... I sense a thread hijacking in progress. Could we continue this in the appropriate forum, at least sparing me the pain of giving my opinion on college sports, mascots, etc. :P



 Posted: Fri Dec 8th, 2006 11:28 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
27th Post
Doc C
Member


Joined: Sun Oct 1st, 2006
Location:  Eastern Shore, Maryland USA
Posts: 822
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

A thousand pardons. To get back on track, does anyone else feel as myself and other discussants that Last Chance for Victory was wriiten in the lost cause mode. Unlike most lost cause writings it did complement Longstreet on his handling of his corp the second day. Would Longstreet come under such scrutiny by the lc's if he had not joined the Republican Party? Another question, did the action on little round top contribute to the eventual outcome of Gettysburg.

Doc C

Last edited on Fri Dec 8th, 2006 11:28 pm by Doc C



 Posted: Sat Dec 9th, 2006 12:17 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
28th Post
Widow
Member
 

Joined: Tue Sep 19th, 2006
Location: Oakton, Fairfax County, VA
Posts: 321
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Thanks, Joe, I apologize.  I plead temporary idiocy, as blabbermouths like me just don't know when to stop.

Patty



 Posted: Sat Dec 9th, 2006 12:25 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
29th Post
Widow
Member
 

Joined: Tue Sep 19th, 2006
Location: Oakton, Fairfax County, VA
Posts: 321
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

You're right, Doc, your questions are good.

The Battle of Gettysburg was so big, so complex, that -- in my opinion -- no single action on any one day can be said to cause the victory or loss.  That's like asking if taking the bridge at Remagen was the action which won the Norman invasion in 1066.

If Oates had taken Little Round Top, he would have been stuck up there, in the dark, no food, water, or ammo.  And surrounded by bluecoats.

If Lee had punched through the center on day 3, he would have been where?  In the middle of the largest Union army on the continent.  And a long way from his supply lines.  Maybe Lee was lucky NOT to have won, because I think that would have been the end of the ANV.

Patty

 



 Posted: Sat Dec 9th, 2006 12:48 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
30th Post
Doc C
Member


Joined: Sun Oct 1st, 2006
Location:  Eastern Shore, Maryland USA
Posts: 822
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Patty

Going with your comment about what if Lee and the ANV had lost. During one of my visits to Antietam, looking over the sunken road I thought what would have happened to the south/nation had Mcclellen attacked the next day and possbly dealt Lee and his army the defining defeat. How many potential lives would have been saved? Would the direction of the country, reconstruction be changed? What effect would Lincoln have if he had survived? One question I have for myself is why does the civil war/military history intrique me so much since I'm a pacifist at heart. Go figure. Maybe it has to do with my birthdate, December 7th.

Doc C



 Posted: Sun Dec 24th, 2006 02:40 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
31st Post
Johnny Huma
Johnny Huma


Joined: Sat Oct 7th, 2006
Location: Williamsport, Pennsylvania USA
Posts: 105
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Doc,

I have to argree with you that I think the Book Last Chance for Victory could pass for what some folks consider a lost cause theory. I myself hate the words "Lost Cause". I think any book written on the South's reasons for entering and eventually losing the war can be classed as a "Lost Cause" book. They infact did lose. So anything relating to why and how they lost is actually a study of why and how they lost. If the Union would have lost the war we would still have books that would have the "Lost Cause Theory" but instead the names would appear to ring with Union Generals Names.  I do not subscribe to the facts that books that are written about the who's and why's of the South and the Southern Army are to be put in a class of "Lost Cause" books because we could class all of them as such on the basis of "The South Lost. I believe it is more of the study of why the South lost the war Economics, Manpower, and yes I will say it..Outgunned...These are facts not excuses as to the destruction of a "Cause" the South believed in. But there are people who like to class anything they read on a book regarding the why's and when's and reasons the south lost as a "Lost Cause Book". That will never change. I do not class any of the books I read on the Civil War one way or the other. I read them with the intentions of learning something from them not to classify them. To the response of "Would taking Little Round Top made a difference" I myself think not..I do not believe it was that important as a geographical place to control the field. Even if the Rebs took it I doubt they could have over run the left flank at that position. And as the book states it was not even in Lee's plans to take the hill..Lee's plan was to turn the flank and Sickles ended up there on the flank..Lee wanted the attack up the Emmittsburg Road to open opportunites up down the line knowing Meade would have to use troops he did not want to use to shure up his left flank.

I think people that like to point the finger at "The Lost Cause Theory" are saying "Oh yea now were going to make excuses up why the South lost and should have won" and that is what irks me the most. Instead we should all read and study and have an open mind as to the what, whens, and hows so we can understand more about The Civil War and I believe that is what this site is actually all about..:)

Huma



 Posted: Sun Dec 24th, 2006 03:50 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
32nd Post
ole
Member


Joined: Sun Oct 22nd, 2006
Location:  
Posts: 2027
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Longstreet's symbolic crucifixion began almost immediately after the battle. His joining the Republican party later in the century just gave Early and company more ammo.

Ole



 Current time is 03:51 pmPage:  First Page Previous Page  1  2   
Top




UltraBB 1.17 Copyright © 2007-2008 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.3065 seconds (15% database + 85% PHP). 25 queries executed.