Billionaire Asshole Shoots Off His Mouth Again

[Autumnlicious]

I'm going to step on a few feelers here, but I don't like Rahul's method of addressing simplicity within the economics and motivations that led up to the ACW by using even more simple assertions. The cause of the ACW was a long time coming from many sources. A break down of dependence between the North and South economies made war inevitable as there was little cause to resist polarization of ideologies that precedes a severe economic fall out (and normally is one of many threats that keeps dis-Union from happening).

How many Africans were shipped to the United States under a Confederate flag?

Irrelevant. The Battlefield flag (often ascribed to as the "Confederate Flag") has nothing to do with the economics of established businesses engaging in human trafficking.

However, the slave holding states (based mostly in the South) provided the economic demand.

Ergo, the wealthy land owners of the Confederacy by and by did purchase and fuel demand for the slave trade.

As the wealthy land owners of the Confederacy provided much financial support for the Civil War, it is fair to say that those poor Africans shipped over decades before were the property and bred into the Southern supply of Black slaves.

You are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.

Nothing of the above excuses the North in any way -- they aided and abetted such, much like both regions of the Union supported restrictive laws towards worker's rights, immigration caps and the coddling of abusive labor practices. The plight of the Irish immigrants into "wage slaves" was entirely upon the North.

Just like the institution of slavery was on the South. Southern agricultural products came into the Northern factories that relied on a form of slave labor just like Northern industrial products fed into the South to allow better exploitation of Southern slave labor.

They were all transported on Northern ships under the flag of the United States of America among a few other countries.

Bought and paid for directly and indirectly by southern slave traders.

You seem to think you can tar the North with the same crimes -- You cannot.

The North has different smears within it.

Oh, the Yankees profited greatly over the slave trade.

Do I have to remind you where the slaves went?

Supply and demand -- is that too hard to understand? Really?

Did you know that in 1830 there were twice as many abolitionist groups in the Southern states than the Northern ones?

And what does that have to do with the price of Tea in China?

There was no significant momentum in the South towards abolition because their economy depended upon the institution of slavery.

Be real -- would you terminate your source of livelihood because a minority within your own lands labeled it as amoral?

Did you know that if an African American entered the state of Illinois even in 1865 and stayed more than two weeks they would be arrested?

Did you know Jim Crow was an innovation of the South?

Like I noted with the Irish, Blacks were just as low on the totem pole of persecution by both sides.

Probably because there were many shared cultural similarities between the South and North (probably because they're in some kind of... Union?)

Do you know what a Sun Down town is? Do you know that more were located in the Northern States than the South?

Now we're turning this into a Gish Gallop.

Did you ever wonder why the Underground Railroad went right through the Northern States and didn't stop until it hit Canada?

Because there was no such thing like the Fugitive Slave Act, drafted and supported by mostly Southern and several Northern figures.
REF: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_Slave_Act_of_1850

Might I also note that the vote tallies in support for the Fugitive Slave Law were (expectedly) of greater majority in the South than North.

Did you know that Southern states pushed to illegalize the Atlantic slave trade before the Northern states?

Because they already had a domestic slave supply that was economically more profitable than the Atlantic Slave Trade?

Honestly Rahul, it's like you don't even know what the fuck business is.

I'll tell you -- it's a bunch of people who have constructed a system of protocols and procedures to facilitate the transfer of wealth.

Period.

Slaves or snakes, if it made money, there was bound to be people to fight for their income.

Regardless of morality.

No, you wouldn't.

Because you got all of your history off the back of a Kellogs box.

Just like you have the nuance of a brick.

But go ahead and reduce down complex historical time periods into black and white caricatures, you puny brained simpleton.

We wouldn't want you to lose that smug feeling of moral superiority would we?

I wouldn't want to live in that skull of yours.

Now about the rubes who fought in the Civil War (the ones who actually, you know, gave their lives)?

Their reasons, on either side, mostly boiled down to "Suppressing Treason" or "Fighting for independance"

Neither groups across the whole spectrum gave a rat's ass about the human beings who happened to be Black.

If anything, both saw Blacks as a form of leverage over the other side. A weapon.

That's the real cost of the Civil War:

Slaves weren't freed because slavery was immoral and wrong; Slaves were freed to stick it to the South.

I don't think the ex-slaves really cared either way -- they were free.

[Autumnlicious]

More than you can handle, kid. The only trolls here are you and your intolerant and bigoted little nerd friends. When ever you double standard hypocrites make inflammatory statements against people you disagree with, expect inflammatory responses.

You quoted a lengthy post only to cat-call. I think you're on shakier ground than I am.

I wouldn't call every one of your opponents and people who disagree with you my "nerd friends" -- I think quite a few of them would have their own differences and vitriol to spare on me.

I'm glad you think that my support network is large -- feels nice.

The French revolution acheived nothing near a stable and fair government. They became worse tyrants than the royalty and aristocrats they beheaded. They were killing anyone just for mere suspicion. Although a dictator, Napoleon was probably the best leader France ever had.

Tyranny of the mob does that.

And a suppressed, destitute people will do anything to destroy others.

Would they have done what they did if they had a fair and just system of government (at least more fair than what preceded the Revolution)?

I doubt it.

People only get aberrant when they have nothing to lose.

That is something Napoleon understood well and addressed.

An Emperor cannot rule the unruly, only those who wish to be ruled. And many French lives given during war attest to their belief in him.

[DeistPaladin]

Sometimes I wonder what would have happened if the Union had let the Southern states go. The south would be a 3rd world country right now, I suspect.

What's certain is that America would have a lot fewer problems with so many batshit crazy Tea Baggers trying to sabotage and destroy this country, all the while screaming that they're the True Patriots.

[Minimalist]

What would have happened would have been a war in the 1880's over western expansion.

[A Theist]

More than you can handle, kid. The only trolls here are you and your intolerant and bigoted little nerd friends. When ever you double standard hypocrites make inflammatory statements against people you disagree with, expect inflammatory responses.

You quoted a lengthy post only to cat-call. I think you're on shakier ground than I am.

I wouldn't call every one of your opponents and people who disagree with you my "nerd friends" -- I think quite a few of them would have their own differences and vitriol to spare on me.

I'm glad you think that my support network is large -- feels nice.

The French revolution acheived nothing near a stable and fair government. They became worse tyrants than the royalty and aristocrats they beheaded. They were killing anyone just for mere suspicion. Although a dictator, Napoleon was probably the best leader France ever had.

Tyranny of the mob does that.

And a suppressed, destitute people will do anything to destroy others.

Would they have done what they did if they had a fair and just system of government (at least more fair than what preceded the Revolution)?

I doubt it.

People only get aberrant when they have nothing to lose.

That is something Napoleon understood well and addressed.

An Emperor cannot rule the unruly, only those who wish to be ruled. And many French lives given during war attest to their belief in him.

I wouldn't call every one of your opponents and people who disagree with you my "nerd friends"

Sorry that my use of the term, "nerd friends" hurt your overly sensitive feelings. Maybe I should have responded as some others on this forum, (like Cato's response, for example, to Rahul earlier in the thread), and lash out with bigoted stereotypes and call people who disagree with me, racists and nazis. Is that something you're more comfortable with? Why is that kind of vitriol and cat-calling okay with you, but when people you disagree with calls it out and responds to it is not okay? I think I'm the one who's on more solid turf here after I called out the double standards.

Tyranny of the mob does that....
Would they have done what they did if they had a fair and just system of government (at least more fair than what preceded the Revolution)?

I think by the time Napoleon came to power the people were weary of the oppression by the revolutionary government, the executions, the government suspicions, and the suspension of the democratic reforms and personal liberties that were fought for in the first place. At that time France was also dealing with wars against Britain, Austria, Spain, etc, and also dealing with local uprisings because of the brutal policies by the revolutionary government. The people of France were ready for stability, something the "Incorruptable" and his revolution failed to provide. Napoleon definitely understood all of that and he was admired by the people. Napoleon also restored personal liberties which were taken by the government before him. Napoleon's downfall was his own ambition which put him and France into constant warfare with other European countries. Dictators have always bitten off far more than they could chew. Aside from that, Napoleon was one history's greatest world leaders.

[Minimalist]

Napoleon Bonaparte was a unique individual. There is always a pointless debate between the "Great Man" theory of history v. the Environment Leads to the Great Man theory. It seems that you cannot have one without the other. As Napoleon noted, "ability is nothing without opportunity."

I'm not so sure about "Napoleon's ambition" though. The reactionary monarchies of Europe had reacted with horror to the ideals of the French Revolution and set the stage for what became the Wars of the Coalitions and this pre-dates Napoleon. Generally, it was the Coalitions which attacked France not vice versa.

As with the observation above about the American Civil War, I suspect that if Napoleon had won at Waterloo the only result would have been to assure a Campaign of 1816. The old guard in Europe was not going to stop.

[DeistPaladin]

I'm personally reluctant to glorify any leader who subverts democracy, crowns himself emperor and launches empire building wars. I personally think France and other nations have truly great people to glorify and build monuments to, such as Pasteur, Voltaire, or Curie. But scientists, great thinkers and artists who really carry civilization forward seldom get the monuments built to honor them and history books would rather feature maps of the warpigs' grand and glorious empire at its height before it all came crashing down.

[Minimalist]

I'm personally reluctant to glorify any leader who subverts democracy, crowns himself emperor and launches empire building wars.

I agree.

[EgoRaptor]

My favorite figure from the French Revolution is Citizen Sade.