StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Steve wrote:I'm re-reading MacPherson's "Battle Cry of Freedom", an illustrated version with pictures and paintings and insets and such with descriptive blurbs, and one point I found interesting reading was that MacPherson acknowledges that a lot of the commentary, letters, etc., of Southerners at the outset of the war were mostly cries of standing up for their "states' rights" and preventing Yankee invasions of their homeland. He then points out that for all of that talk, all of the hatred and rage and anger about "Black Republicans" spurred this sort of talk on, and their hatred of Republicans was because the Republicans were against letting slavery expand into the territories - the Southerners wanted a federal slave code governing territories, IOW, it would be automatically presumed that slavery was allowed in the territories unless the population of said territory wrote a state constitution forbidding it.

The fun thing about the territories making it forbidden in their state constitutions(which almost all of the ones in question were in the process of doing), the slavocrats were already setting up plans to ensure that those states wouldn't be able to do that using the Dred Scott case to claim that any such provision was illegal according to the precedent set in that ruling. As much as the southerns go about screaming about states rights they constantly did so denying those same rights against any other state if it didn't advance their own agendas. That's right according to the south, states only had rights as long as their [Gollem]precious[/Gollem] institution of slavery was left untouched and they were allowed to do anything they wanted with it and force everyone else to go along with it using the same Federal power they were claiming was about to wrong them.

The southern aristocrats were baldfaced bullies and whiny petulant assholes who were only willing to do anything as long as they were allowed to get away with murder. When it was fairly clear, in their eyes, that they weren't going to be able to do that they 'rebelled.' They are scum, they were always scum.

Thanas wrote:

cmdrjones wrote:In form, if you find racism the worst thing ever, then this will BE your boogeyman. Myself, i find the scouring of the Earth's (known) surface by the Mongols,

The Mongols never scoured the known surface of the earth, they got stomped on pretty hard once they tried to take on powers that were actually competent militarily.

the obliteration of entire cities and religions by the Romans

What cities and what religions did the Romans obliterate? We know that they destroyed carthage, but what other examples of obliteration and what scale are we talking about here?

Perhaps the South would have mellowed a bit ont eh slavery thing had theirs lasted far longer than the incredible scope of the Romans or Mongols, or if they had exterminated slaves by the tens of millions like the Arabs did. So, in that we can agree.

Citation needed for the arabs exterminating tens of millions.

#1 The Mongols didn't ravage the middle kingdom, central asia (khwarizm), Baghdad, large portions of India? Y'know, all the parts they knew about and some they didn't? Even so, that makes them demonstrably worse than the Confederates on scale being that the Confederates failed to ravage Maryland, Tennessee and Pennsylvania.. oh and Kansas....

#2 The Etruscans.... Jerusalem... Etc... Judaism survived, of course but if you'd been a Roman Centurion standing there in 70AD and a Scribe rushed up to ask you some questions for the Imperial Gazette, you'd probably light a stogie and talk about how dead jews smelled like victory.

#3 ok, so when the Arabs took black slaves, they sold ALL of them in west Africa? took NONE from east Africa to the middle east? I saw two Iraqi black people in the entire YEAR in Baghdad... oh wait, one was a somali.... what happened to them and their (by now) hundreds of millions of descendants?

cmdrjones wrote:#1 The Mongols didn't ravage the middle kingdom, central asia (khwarizm), Baghdad, large portions of India? Y'know, all the parts they knew about and some they didn't? Even so, that makes them demonstrably worse than the Confederates on scale being that the Confederates failed to ravage Maryland, Tennessee and Pennsylvania.. oh and Kansas....

They knew about Italy and Central Europe and never scoured either. They knew about Egypt and nowadays Saudi-Arabia and did not scour it either.

So no, they did not scour the known earth.

#2 The Etruscans....

Not exterminated by the Romans.

Jerusalem... Etc... Judaism survived, of course but if you'd been a Roman Centurion standing there in 70AD and a Scribe rushed up to ask you some questions for the Imperial Gazette, you'd probably light a stogie and talk about how dead jews smelled like victory.

Oh, so the Romans exterminated the Jews? They clearly did not.
Did they exterminate nowadays Israel? They also did not, for if you would look at a map of the war, you would note that it was a localized insurrection centered in the hinterland around Jerusalem and did not catch fire in the costal cities (where most of the Jews lived) or in Egypt (where also jews lived, probably more than in Jerusalem).
So no, the Romans did not exterminate the Jews. Nor did they try to.

#3 ok, so when the Arabs took black slaves, they sold ALL of them in west Africa? took NONE from east Africa to the middle east? I saw two Iraqi black people in the entire YEAR in Baghdad... oh wait, one was a somali.... what happened to them and their (by now) hundreds of millions of descendants?

This is beyond pathetic. Show evidence such extermination did occur. And no, your nonsensical guess about "there must be descendants who are black" does not count.

cmdrjones wrote:Even so, that makes them demonstrably worse than the Confederates on scale being that the Confederates failed to ravage Maryland, Tennessee and Pennsylvania.. oh and Kansas….

First, 2 words BLEEDING KANSAS.

Second, the Confederates only failed to ravage Maryland because they lost the battle of Antietam. They failed to ravage Pennsylvania because they lost the Battle of Gettysburg, and they failed to ravage Tennessee? What? Do you not know anything about the American Civil War at all?

Neo-Confederates love to rant about Sherman and his march to the sea but even that was far more lenient then they like to try and portray it as.

Isolder74 wrote:

cmdrjones wrote:Even so, that makes them demonstrably worse than the Confederates on scale being that the Confederates failed to ravage Maryland, Tennessee and Pennsylvania.. oh and Kansas….

First, 2 words BLEEDING KANSAS.

Second, the Confederates only failed to ravage Maryland because they lost the battle of Antietam. They failed to ravage Pennsylvania because they lost the Battle of Gettysburg, and they failed to ravage Tennessee? What? Do you not know anything about the American Civil War at all?

Neo-Confederates love to rant about Sherman and his march to the sea but even that was far more lenient then they like to try and portray it as.

I know about those things and then I compared them to oh, I don't know... The sacking of Baghdad, Beijing, nishapur, Kiev, etc etc by the Mongols and kinda considered that the Mongols were far far worse... Being that that was the comparison being made. In this context, it kinda makes you look a little provincial to be crying in big old red letters about bleeding Kansas when Beijing burned for weeks and so on, but unlike fans of a certain Korean spacer kingdom, I wont assume you are an ass, only that you had a lapse in reading comprehension

cmdrjones wrote:#1 The Mongols didn't ravage the middle kingdom, central asia (khwarizm), Baghdad, large portions of India? Y'know, all the parts they knew about and some they didn't? Even so, that makes them demonstrably worse than the Confederates on scale being that the Confederates failed to ravage Maryland, Tennessee and Pennsylvania.. oh and Kansas....

#2 The Etruscans.... Jerusalem... Etc... Judaism survived, of course but if you'd been a Roman Centurion standing there in 70AD and a Scribe rushed up to ask you some questions for the Imperial Gazette, you'd probably light a stogie and talk about how dead jews smelled like victory.

#3 ok, so when the Arabs took black slaves, they sold ALL of them in west Africa? took NONE from east Africa to the middle east? I saw two Iraqi black people in the entire YEAR in Baghdad... oh wait, one was a somali.... what happened to them and their (by now) hundreds of millions of descendants?

#1 Irrelevant.

#2 Irrelevant.

#3 Irrelevant.

None of these have anything whatsoever to do with the Confederacy being in both the moral and legal wrong. That someone else was also wrong sometime in ancient history does not make them right. I'm frankly astounded that you would even try to make that argument; the only reason it's even halfway working as a distraction is because you're wrong about the examples from ancient history that you bring up too, so people are arguing with you on those instead of the original point. I am not going to do that. Article IV of the United States Constitution says the Confederates could not do what they did by law, and basic principles of self-determination say that they were wrong to do what they did by most conventional morality.

Rogue 9 wrote:

cmdrjones wrote:#1 The Mongols didn't ravage the middle kingdom, central asia (khwarizm), Baghdad, large portions of India? Y'know, all the parts they knew about and some they didn't? Even so, that makes them demonstrably worse than the Confederates on scale being that the Confederates failed to ravage Maryland, Tennessee and Pennsylvania.. oh and Kansas....

#2 The Etruscans.... Jerusalem... Etc... Judaism survived, of course but if you'd been a Roman Centurion standing there in 70AD and a Scribe rushed up to ask you some questions for the Imperial Gazette, you'd probably light a stogie and talk about how dead jews smelled like victory.

#3 ok, so when the Arabs took black slaves, they sold ALL of them in west Africa? took NONE from east Africa to the middle east? I saw two Iraqi black people in the entire YEAR in Baghdad... oh wait, one was a somali.... what happened to them and their (by now) hundreds of millions of descendants?

#1 Irrelevant.

#2 Irrelevant.

#3 Irrelevant.

None of these have anything whatsoever to do with the Confederacy being in both the moral and legal wrong. That someone else was also wrong sometime in ancient history does not make them right. I'm frankly astounded that you would even try to make that argument; the only reason it's even halfway working as a distraction is because you're wrong about the examples from ancient history that you bring up too, so people are arguing with you on those instead of the original point. I am not going to do that. Article IV of the United States Constitution says the Confederates could not do what they did by law, and basic principles of self-determination say that they were wrong to do what they did by most conventional morality.

I wasn't arguing that the confederacy was in the right, I was objecting to the constant hand wringing about the confederacy being the most,immoral slave power in all history when that is obviously not the case when Romans, Mongols and Arabs enslaved more people, wreaked more destruction, and engaged in far more aggressive and destructive warfare than the confederates ever did When measured either in absolute or proportional shares of either the earth's surface or the population.

cmdrjones wrote:I wasn't arguing that the confederacy was in the right, I was objecting to the constant hand wringing about the confederacy being the most,immoral slave power in all history when that is obviously not the case when Romans, Mongols and Arabs enslaved more people, wreaked more destruction, and engaged in far more aggressive and destructive warfare than the confederates ever did When measured either in absolute or proportional shares of either the earth's surface or the population.

That the Romans, Mongols, and Arabs were more successful nations - which is why they ended up conquering other nations - has nothing to do with the inherent morality/immorality of their slavery system.

Indeed, especially with the Romans, one may argue that their non-racist slave system was a reason why their Empire was so successful in the first place - it gave outlets for even former enemies to integrate themselves to Roman society and to achieve personal prosperity; and why pretty much every ambitious European leader in the Middle Ages to the pre-industrial era was styling themselves as the successor to Rome.

The Confederates by contrast were never anything more than racist and evil sore losers.

Wow, so Jones is really claiming the arabs took 18 millions of slaves and genocided them after transporting them all over the sahara desert? Really?

Does he not realise that 18 millions of slave trading over 12 centuries amounts to very little considering the populations involved in terms of mixture?

Does he not realise that a not insignificant portion of those were directly sold on to Europe?

The Romans were successful because they were just as welcoming and inclusivistic as they were expansionist and belligerent. Former enemies and freed slaves were given opportunities to make it big and there's quite a number of emperors even that weren't of original Roman stock.
The CSA in contrast was the small-minded pet project of a tiny clique of disgruntled rich old fucks who had never learned that the world didn't revolve solely around them and that you sometimes don't get your way. Even if they had survived the Civil War, I think it would have collapsed or turned into a failed state not long afterwards. That they couldn't blackmail Britain into joining the war by witholding cotton is one of the most telling signs of it, since they had little more to them than the cotton export to the point that they couldn't even adequately feed the population during the war since they had converted so many grainfields to grow cotton instead. Add to that the chronic inter-state bickering and quarreling and I simply can't see the CSA as going anywhere on its own.
What is this sad joke of a "country" compared to the Roman Empire? The Romans left a lasting legacy behind (in law, language and architecture) while the only thing reminiscent of the CSA is the shameless self-pity of its descendants. Even if you take the US South as a whole, the CSA was but one short episode in it.

Thanas wrote:Wow, so Jones is really claiming the arabs took 18 millions of slaves and genocided them after transporting them all over the sahara desert? Really?

Does he not realise that 18 millions of slave trading over 12 centuries amounts to very little considering the populations involved in terms of mixture?

Does he not realise that a not insignificant portion of those were directly sold on to Europe?

Oh well that makes it ok then

Zinegata wrote:

cmdrjones wrote:I wasn't arguing that the confederacy was in the right, I was objecting to the constant hand wringing about the confederacy being the most,immoral slave power in all history when that is obviously not the case when Romans, Mongols and Arabs enslaved more people, wreaked more destruction, and engaged in far more aggressive and destructive warfare than the confederates ever did When measured either in absolute or proportional shares of either the earth's surface or the population.

That the Romans, Mongols, and Arabs were more successful nations - which is why they ended up conquering other nations - has nothing to do with the inherent morality/immorality of their slavery system.

Indeed, especially with the Romans, one may argue that their non-racist slave system was a reason why their Empire was so successful in the first place - it gave outlets for even former enemies to integrate themselves to Roman society and to achieve personal prosperity; and why pretty much every ambitious European leader in the Middle Ages to the pre-industrial era was styling themselves as the successor to Rome.

The Confederates by contrast were never anything more than racist and evil sore losers.

So, because being an equal opportunity slaver makes you MORE sucessful, it also makes you MORE moral... So, it boils down to might makes right? Glad to know where you stand

Seems my point flew right over mr jones' head.

He said the Confederacy didn't ravage Kansas, when my point was that they(the fact that the Confederacy didn't exist yet is moot) DID.

The other things he said they didn't do only didn't happen because they failed to pull them off, but they sure tried, so claiming a moral high ground on the point of the Mongols, Romans — whomever — were more successful at being mean is moronic at best.

Also, if your only redeeming argument is that your favourite 19th century asshole state wasn't 'more evil' than a 1st/2nd century civilization or a 13th century nomadic horde, you should look for a better one.

cmdrjones wrote: I wasn't arguing that the confederacy was in the right, I was objecting to the constant hand wringing about the confederacy being the most,immoral slave power in all history when that is obviously not the case when Romans, Mongols and Arabs enslaved more people, wreaked more destruction, and engaged in far more aggressive and destructive warfare than the confederates ever did When measured either in absolute or proportional shares of either the earth's surface or the population.

If you want to talk about the institutions of slavery specifically between these different countries, then why do you keep talking about military acts and cultural atrocities like the sack of Baghdad? If we are talking about how slavery compared, talking about the military is irrelevant. It's just an attempt to distract everyone by moving the goalposts. That the Mongols killed more people than the Confederates tells us NOTHING about the relative morality of their slave systems. If you don't talk about the way the Romans, Mongols, and Arabs conducted the slave trade with comparison to the Confederacy than you are just changing the subject. So why don't you talk about what you actually claim to be talking about? Or address the numerous arguments made over the last several pages of thread in which people specifically tell you how those slave trades compare?

Even if you ignore all of the above (as I fully expect you too, considering how many people's posts and arguments you've already blatantly ignored), try to wrap your mind around this:

The Confederacy existed for slightly under 4 years. Though the previous ~50 years of American history (especially with respect to the slave trade) are also relevant for this discussion. Either way, the Confederacy was a short-lived nation. Also remember, the Confederacy existed during the 19th century.

The Roman Empire lasted around 1400 years, though it really depends on just how loosely you want to talk about the "Romans" (as you haven't been very clear). Either way, we are talking about hundreds of years, even if you decide to discount the Eastern Roman Empire and the Roman Republic.

The Mongol Empire lasted somewhere around (IIRC) 150 years as a single, contiguous entity. Though, realistically, when we talk about the Mongols we tend to also talk about the Golden Horde, which extends that timeline another several decades at least. You are talking roughly 13th to early 16th centuries.

The Arabs ... well, you are also vague about what era of Arab history you are referring to, but if you want to refer to their slave trade as a whole you are talking about a period of time stretching about 1300 years.

WHY do you think it reflects well on the Confederates that even YOU, as an apologist for them, think it's reasonable to compare them with the actions of much larger empires (both in area, population, economically, and militarily) over much longer time frames, the bulk of which occurred at least 300 and up to almost 2000 years before!

Ziggy Stardust wrote:

cmdrjones wrote: I wasn't arguing that the confederacy was in the right, I was objecting to the constant hand wringing about the confederacy being the most,immoral slave power in all history when that is obviously not the case when Romans, Mongols and Arabs enslaved more people, wreaked more destruction, and engaged in far more aggressive and destructive warfare than the confederates ever did When measured either in absolute or proportional shares of either the earth's surface or the population.

If you want to talk about the institutions of slavery specifically between these different countries, then why do you keep talking about military acts and cultural atrocities like the sack of Baghdad? If we are talking about how slavery compared, talking about the military is irrelevant. It's just an attempt to distract everyone by moving the goalposts. That the Mongols killed more people than the Confederates tells us NOTHING about the relative morality of their slave systems. If you don't talk about the way the Romans, Mongols, and Arabs conducted the slave trade with comparison to the Confederacy than you are just changing the subject. So why don't you talk about what you actually claim to be talking about? Or address the numerous arguments made over the last several pages of thread in which people specifically tell you how those slave trades compare?

Even if you ignore all of the above (as I fully expect you too, considering how many people's posts and arguments you've already blatantly ignored), try to wrap your mind around this:

The Confederacy existed for slightly under 4 years. Though the previous ~50 years of American history (especially with respect to the slave trade) are also relevant for this discussion. Either way, the Confederacy was a short-lived nation. Also remember, the Confederacy existed during the 19th century.

The Roman Empire lasted around 1400 years, though it really depends on just how loosely you want to talk about the "Romans" (as you haven't been very clear). Either way, we are talking about hundreds of years, even if you decide to discount the Eastern Roman Empire and the Roman Republic.

The Mongol Empire lasted somewhere around (IIRC) 150 years as a single, contiguous entity. Though, realistically, when we talk about the Mongols we tend to also talk about the Golden Horde, which extends that timeline another several decades at least. You are talking roughly 13th to early 16th centuries.

The Arabs ... well, you are also vague about what era of Arab history you are referring to, but if you want to refer to their slave trade as a whole you are talking about a period of time stretching about 1300 years.

WHY do you think it reflects well on the Confederates that even YOU, as an apologist for them, think it's reasonable to compare them with the actions of much larger empires (both in area, population, economically, and militarily) over much longer time frames, the bulk of which occurred at least 300 and up to almost 2000 years before!

Finally a decent question! I fully acknowledge the things that you have posted here and this is an EXCELLENT summation of my position. As I've said elsewhere, I don't know where the idea arose that we can't compare two things l, or more, unless they are exactly alike. Was slavery in the confederacy horrific? Absolutely was it less "fair" than that of the Mongols or Romans or even Arabs? Probably. Should we not talk about the warfare that led to the various types of slavery? I think that is a critical issue to understanding all sides of the issue... And no I'm not trying the old to quoque. That would apply if I stated that these other empires slaving absolved the south, which I have stated more than once is not the case.
Think of it this way, how would you rather be enslaved, after a slave raid in west Africa in 1650 by arabs, by living through the sack of gaul, or how about during the attack on nishapur? To properly assess the situation you have to look at what LED to the enslavement of those millions as well as the conditions they labored under. When compared on scale and time, as you pointed put the confeds rather look like pikers, but when you compare them on fairness or JUSTICE they are actually WORSE.... mainly because their OWN PROFESSED BELIEFS were against what they were doing! The average roman, mongol, or Arab held to belief systems that endorsed slavery, so in my mind they are less guilty. Now, look at all we have learned! It's sorts like when metahive went superapeshit when I started calling Korea the slaver kingdom in response to him calling the south a slavocracy. He was right, it WAS a slavocracy. That doesn't mean that Korea wasn't a,slaver kingdom or that my "trolling" was a total waste of time. I,am well satisfied and if Thanas and his squad want to ban me for trolling I.e. pushing people's buttons, well I can live with that. Thank you and goodnight!

cmdrjones wrote:So, because being an equal opportunity slaver makes you MORE sucessful, it also makes you MORE moral... So, it boils down to might makes right? Glad to know where you stand

I explicitly said it had nothing to do with the moral question of slavery. I just said the Romans were more successful as a nation and your argument boils down to sour graping. Now it has moved on to full blown apologism.

The Confederates were slavers, racist and losers. The Romans were slavers but they were damn well more successful as an empire because they weren't retarded racist.

That you keep attempting to draw moral equivalency based on the longevity and success of an empire demonstrates how your argument is nothing more than a bankrupt attempt to pretend the Confederates weren't racist evil sore losers. Because according to your retarded standards the Nazis were better than the Romans - "Hey the Nazis genocided and enslaved millions but it was only for a decade compared to Rome's centuries!"

I think this thread is officially derailed. The Romans and Mongols have Jack and shit to do with the origins and causes of the Civil War, and Jack just left town.

Zinegata wrote:

cmdrjones wrote:So, because being an equal opportunity slaver makes you MORE sucessful, it also makes you MORE moral... So, it boils down to might makes right? Glad to know where you stand

I explicitly said it had nothing to do with the moral question of slavery. I just said the Romans were more successful as a nation and your argument boils down to sour graping. Now it has moved on to full blown apologism.

The Confederates were slavers, racist and losers. The Romans were slavers but they were damn well more successful as an empire because they weren't retarded racist.

That you keep attempting to draw moral equivalency based on the longevity and success of an empire demonstrates how your argument is nothing more than a bankrupt attempt to pretend the Confederates weren't racist evil sore losers. Because according to your retarded standards the Nazis were better than the Romans - "Hey the Nazis genocided and enslaved millions but it was only for a decade compared to Rome's centuries!"

Steve wrote:I think this thread is officially derailed. The Romans and Mongols have Jack and shit to do with the origins and causes of the Civil War, and Jack just left town.

All of your claims about history are true, all of your suppositions about my motivations are wrong...
It's almost as if NO ONE is Good.... weird.

Well. Yeah. No one is perfectly good. But the Confederacy is pretty Goddamned far down the list, arguing about whether they were worse than Romans or Mongols doesn't really deflect from the fact that they caused the Civil War out of their militant desire to sustain the enslavement of millions of human beings that they treated like fucking cattle.

The slavery apologist known as cmdrjones has finally been banned. So his idiocy in this and other threads has now itself become... history.

And good riddance!

It's good this thread can now get back on topic.

Isolder74 wrote:And good riddance!

It's good this thread can now get back on topic.

hadn't we come conclution about that ages ago but jonesey threw a tantrum because we concluded that CSA was just as much if not more so to blame for the Civil War as the Union was.