StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Lord Revan wrote:

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.

Much more so, in fact. Though in fairness to him he wasn't overtly defending the Confederacy; just making the argument that they weren't uniquely evil. That argument is sustainable (though he didn't pick particularly good examples), but it's not at all relevant to the thread topic. I was more annoyed that he wasn't at all addressing the topic of the thread, or the essay that I've put a great deal of work into that started it.

Though at any rate, before he butted in, this thread had been dead for months. There's nothing to do but retread what was already said in the first four pages at this point, so I'm content to let it lie. I should soon have a new essay up in any case; I'm working on one concerning the antebellum South's role in the election of 1860, tentatively titled "Whom the Gods Would Destroy."

Rogue 9 wrote:

Lord Revan wrote:

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.

Much more so, in fact. Though in fairness to him he wasn't overtly defending the Confederacy; just making the argument that they weren't uniquely evil. That argument is sustainable (though he didn't pick particularly good examples), but it's not at all relevant to the thread topic. I was more annoyed that he wasn't at all addressing the topic of the thread, or the essay that I've put a great deal of work into that started it.

Though at any rate, before he butted in, this thread had been dead for months. There's nothing to do but retread what was already said in the first four pages at this point, so I'm content to let it lie. I should soon have a new essay up in any case; I'm working on one concerning the antebellum South's role in the election of 1860, tentatively titled "Whom the Gods Would Destroy."

Yeah I wanted to word my comment in a way that wouldn't seem like I was trying to "score points" by beating on a recently banned member hence the rather conservative wording.

as for Jones it seems like to me that was trying to defend the CSA in a rather twisted and ineffectual way, meaning his logic seemed to be "if CSA isn't the worst there was you're just bias against it and it was a misunderstood victim" or at least the the picture I got from his postings here and in other threads.

Rogue 9 wrote:Much more so, in fact. Though in fairness to him he wasn't overtly defending the Confederacy; just making the argument that they weren't uniquely evil.

The problem with that line of argument is that it's merely false moral equivalency - if everyone is evil then no one is evil. This is a bankrupt form of debating because we can in fact draw lines between the different shades of evil.

Moreover he kept trying to move away from the specific moral question of slavery into the tangent of national longevity. A nation is not made more or less evil just because it existed for a longer time period. Its morality is based on the laws and policies of the nation.

Zinegata wrote:

Rogue 9 wrote:Much more so, in fact. Though in fairness to him he wasn't overtly defending the Confederacy; just making the argument that they weren't uniquely evil.

The problem with that line of argument is that it's merely false moral equivalency - if everyone is evil then no one is evil. This is a bankrupt form of debating because we can in fact draw lines between the different shades of evil.

Moreover he kept trying to move away from the specific moral question of slavery into the tangent of national longevity. A nation is not made more or less evil just because it existed for a longer time period. Its morality is based on the laws and policies of the nation.

As I stated it seemed to be his twisted and perverted way of defending the CSA basically if CSA wasn't uniquely evil, it was the victim of the Civil War which quite frankly has more then quite a few issues even as a "logical" argument (mainly that it assumes that's only 2 options "the worst thing ever" or "victim")

The problem with this argument is that during the time of it's existence, the CSA was uniquely evil.

Comparing them to other examples of civilisations long gone, which lived in a world where everyone did the same as they did does not help to mask the fact that the CSA was fighting for upholding and extending a inhuman practice that most of their cultural sphere (the Western countries) regarded as barbaric for quite a long time, and being nonchalant in how violently they abused other humans they regarded as "lesser beings".

Which makes them pretty much the Nazi eqivalent of the 1860ies.

To be fair though, the contemporary British Empire wasn't that great either. Most of the 19th century seems to have been a race to the bottom in how much you can abuse "lesser races".

Well, but even the British were backpedalling quickly on slavery, were actively patroling the African coast to prevent further captures, and so on, since the early 1800's, and passed the Slavery Abolition Act in 1834, and completely enacted it in the 40's...
France got rid of slavery in 17944, but with Napoleon being a duche in 1802, they needed to abolish it again in 1848.

So we're talking about complete abolition about 20-30 years ago, with partial abolition 50-60 years ago, while the CSA still wanted to strengthen the practice.

Oh I am not talking about slavery. I am talking about the colonial excesses and genocides.

Thanas wrote:Oh I am not talking about slavery. I am talking about the colonial excesses and genocides.

Well, thankfully, we do not need to bother with that in a comparison, because of the lack of CSA colonies. But I would be surprised to hear that their treatment of people in colonies would be superior to the conduct of Britain.

(Actually, I would be surprised if they wouldn't make the Empire look benevolent in comparison.)

Not disputing any of that, just that I don't buy that the CSA were the Nazis of the 19th century, because that would imply they would be responsible for the highest atrocities and number of deaths. Which is more than a bit of a stretch considering what the Brits were up to.