"The 'Other' Side of the Slavery Question" Topic

Tort, the year's new Marx playset was always my main and best Christmas present.

So, you didn't answer the question put to you regarding 'Judeo-Christianity.'

Me too Doc, fond memories.

link

Here ya go. Some differences of interpretation on various points, but almost all Christian churches hold to the doctrine of the Fall.

Not preaching, but rather informing you of my own assumptions/starting point/dogma. It may or may not be yours, but you have some view of human nature and we can't discuss the topic unless we know "where each other is coming from." IS human nature fixed? or is it plastic?

Doc.
Your definition of "Judaeo Christian" seems extremely Calvinist. I doubt that Catholics or Jews would feel comfortable with it.

I strongly suggest that you drop this IMMEDIATELY. While politics is allegedly not permitted on TMP, religion should be even more forbidden. Particularly 16th and 17th Century interpretations. I don't want to dig up my notes on heresy from theology classes at College.
Just… Let's not go there.
Knock it off.

I remember a scene from Avram Davidson's wonderful novel Peregrine:Primus. "I'm a Nestorian, and I can whip any Monophysite in this tavern!" Let's not stoop to that. My Catholic upbringing and education finds fault with your analysis.

Guys, guys, there's nothing to drop. The question is simply what are your views of human nature. Those assumptions about reality are the basis for almost all political beliefs. I've told you mine and asked to know yours. Because we cannot discuss the effect of ideas on human behavior without 1) believing in ideas -- no materialists allowed; and 2) deciding what are the limits, if any, on "human behavior." It isn't religion, though every religion including YOURS, whatever it is including nothing, has a position on the question. IS human nature plastic, capable of being shaped by some external power like education? Or is it such that any utopian scheme must collapse of its own weight?

I DO NOT CARE what your religious position is and I am not even asking; I want to know your view of human nature.

John, Jews do not hold the doctrine of the Fall; Catholics do. But I think Jews will agree that there are limits on how good humans can be, for how long; that is what Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement) is about. The wiki article I linked to lays all that out.

Is man perfectable? You all have an answer to that, even if this is the first time you've thought about it. Wherever it comes from, can society mold us into anything it wants us to be?

If you are unwilling to discuss basic philosophical concepts, then all we are doing is flinging opinions at each other.

Your definition of "Judaeo Christian" seems extremely Calvinist. I doubt that Catholics or Jews would feel comfortable with it.

It isn't in alignment with Roman Catholic doctrine, so you are correct. I'm Catholic, went to Catholic school for twelve years, and was never taught what was posted.

Your words, doc. From your keypad:

Okay, the question of to what extent the originator of an idea is responsible for actions taken in the name of that idea is a fair one. Don't know your view of human nature, but mine is orthodox Judeo-Christian: man is fallen, with a nature corrupted by sin, and is INCAPABLE of being good for any length of time.

A few posts ago. Now you're saying that "Jews do not hold the doctrine of the Fall"?
How can it be "orthodox Judeo- Christian" if the Jews do not hold that doctrine?
Shut it down. You're embarrassing yourself.
And you don't speak for all Christians either. That is unless you don't consider Catholics Christian.

That is unless you don't consider Catholics Christian.

I was raised Presbyterian and I never encountered this "fall" business myself. Dat sum fire 'n brimstone stuff.

I was once told that I wasn't a Christian because I was a Catholic. 🤦‍♂️

When I began teaching I had to take enough education classes in order to get my credentials. In one of them, which was actually a good course with an excellent instructor, we had a teacher who stated that she believed because of her 'religion' (which was conservative Christian) that all people were basically evil, including children. The instructor told her, pulling no punches, that she had no business teaching or being around children.

I also have no intention of discussing Calvinist, Jansenist or Catholic views on whether Man "is INCAPABLE of being good for any length of time".
It is preposterous to think that this is a fit topic for discussion on a miniature Wargaming site. Preposterous.

And you don't speak for all Christians either.

Isn't that the truth.

The "Judeo" part is because the scriptural basis is Genesis. And you guys are missing the point. Never mind where my belief comes from.

SOME SAY human nature is somehow flawed so that bad things like greed and ambition creep in, no matter what.

OTHERS SAY (or imply) that humans can be shaped, molded, into better and better societies, through things such as education, maybe eugenics, equal distribution or abolition of property, etc.

Marx and his idea are very much part of that second philosophy. So I am asking where others on this thread fall. We cannot debate unless we can find some common point of departure.

I am indeed a Presbyterian and a Calvinist to some degree, though I was raised an Arminian Methodist. I too have heard the notion that Catholics are not Christians and reject it utterly; they are our brothers in Christ, in spite of some doctrinal differences. Since you asked.

I do not want to talk about religion. I want to talk about human nature. So we can talk about Marxism. Which has been responsible for the untimely deaths of tens of millions of people, however much folks want to try to excuse it.

I can and will defend that proposition, but it requires a discussion of human nature.

I don't see how you can separate "Judeo" from Jews, but carry on. You are amusing me.

Once again, this discussion has no place on a wargaming site.
I'm not about to split hairs between Arminian Methodists and Calvinist Presbyterians, with a sideswipe at Catholics.

THIS HAS NO BUSINESS ON A WARGAMING SITE!!!!!

I am indeed a Presbyterian and a Calvinist to some degree, though I was raised an Arminian Methodist. I too have heard the notion that Catholics are not Christians and reject it utterly; they are our brothers in Christ, in spite of some doctrinal differences. Since you asked.

I'm not about to split hairs between Arminian Methodists and Calvinist Presbyterians, with a sideswipe at Catholics.

John, you don't even read what I write. A sideswipe at Catholics? where? Not much point in arguing with someone who claims I said the opposite of what I actually wrote.

So we can talk about Marxism.

No.
Not in the American Revolution board, and not on the Civil War board.
Why do you claim the right to hijack any and all threads to push your ideology?
I swear, if I posted a thread about how I'm making abatis for a Yorktown scenario, you would find an excuse to drag in Kant and Leibnitz.

To be clear, I never said that YOU were taking a sideswipe at Catholics.
HOWEVER, my ex in-laws, Presbyterians, didn't think that I was Christian.
And that wasn't the only instance.
They also didn't like my "flaunting beer" at a BBQ next door.
We got along real well.

Can't you go back to discussing something non-controversial, like SLAVERY?

Thank you…

Say goodnight, Gracie.

Wow, did this blow up.

I mentioned Marxism as an example of evil, because it almost immediately resulted in evil. The Communist Manifesto was rooted in Marxism. Mao's philosophy is rooted in Marxism, as is the underpinning of the Kim dynasties "People's Republic of Korea." (There's an irony there— massive amounts of Asia supposedly kicked out Western European colonialism in order to establish the ideas of government put forth by a Western European political philosopher.)
I certainly wasn't thinking of Mark Levin. Heck, I learned about Marxism and its evils back when I was a child. All one had to do was read about it, and watch the way the world was. Every government which adopted or sprang from Marxist principles inevitably became tyrannical. I knew this long before Mark Levin ever became a public figure. I studied elements of it in college, in one case from a professor who had first-hand knowledge of Marxism's excesses (having been in China and seeing the results of Mao's Marxism in the Cultural Revolution).

So, if "Mark Levin" is a feeble attempt to counter my argument, it was way off target.

I do miss the old Sears-Roebuck Christmas catalogue and the Marx toy soldier sets, especially the War II and Civil War sets. Great stuff.

No worries Parzival.

You mentioned something about people singing the praises of Marxism these days. I disagreed, Marxisn doesn't work, it was always an easy smokescreen for dictators to pretend they were for the people, as in the USSR. I look around – no Marxists, a few Facists, mostly Americans victimized by cable opinion fake news.

Now Levin writes a scary book, calls it American Marxism. It is the number one bestseller for weeks and he pushes it relentlsy between trips to the bank. People can get out their tin hats if they want, but I don't see any actual Marxists running around having parades, running for office, controlling the economy. It's hard enough to read Marx, nobody could make it work as it was written. But it makes a great bogeyman for Levin.

So I am just disagreeing with you and Levin that it's a threat. Autocrats whether fake Marxists, fake nationalists, or whatever, are far more common around the globe these days IMO.

But Tort, while you are no doubt correct that many or most dictators and such who appeal to Marxism as a justification are cynics and not true believers, the ideas do have power and appeal, as Lennon's imagine suggests. We are all subject to the temptations of greed and envy, but Marxism lets people pretend they are being high minded idealists and care about others. Ideas can be weapons, and Marxism, especially when it is unnamed, is an especially dangerous one.

Tort, you will agree that Cuba and Venezuela and such are run along Marxist lines? And China certainly used to be, though they have backed away from that, because, as you say, it doesn't work. But there have always been and remain today some number of Americans who still hold up Cuba etc as models of how our country should be organized and run. And the (unreachable) Marxist stars are still in the eyes of many young people who have not been taught the horrible reality.

Tort, sorry, but I've been listening and watching current politicians and their statements and actions. Yes, they are very careful NOT to mention Marx by name— but they readily quote him:

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

That's pure Marx, and it's been in the mouths of politicians and political activists across the country, in one form or another, especially in the last few years.

It's also a really, really foolish idea. As I've said before, the counter to it is a two word question:

Who decides?

And that's the rub that turns Marxism from a pleasant fantasy into a harsh and tyrannical reality. Because unless the individual decides what this phrase means— and he can decide only for himself, or he shall be the tyrant— then the decision can only be imposed by others. If others decide what your abilities are (and thus what work you do), and others decide what your needs are (and thus what you will be allowed to have), that's not freedom. In fact, it's the very definition of slavery.

Tort, you will agree that Cuba and Venezuela and such are run along Marxist lines?

I wouldn't. They are thuggish dictatorships in desperate search of ideological justification. They would be acting exactly the same if they claimed Fascist, or Rosicrucian ideology. The veneer is there, as is the lip service. Isn't the ultimate theoretical goal of Communism the "withering away" of the State? I haven't seen any avowed Marxist (Communist) state that even remotely aspired to that goal.
The people are oppressed just as much if the dictators in charge claim to be Marxist, or religious or tribal.

THIS is why the US rejected communism, for a long time. The Pilgrims had heard not of Marx nor Levin, but organized their colony along communist lines; the land was held in common and people worked at assigned jobs. Then they began to starve:

William Bradford, Of Plymouth Plantation 120--21

1623
All this while no supply was heard of, neither knew they when they might expect any. So they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery. At length, after much debate of things, the Governor (with the advice of the chiefest amongst them) gave way that they should set corn every man for his own particular, and in that regard trust to themselves; in all other things to go on in the general way as before. And so assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number, for that end, only for present use (but made no division for inheritance) and ranged all boys and youth under some family. This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression.

The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato's and other ancients applauded by some of later times; that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labour and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense. The strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes than he that was weak and not able to do a quarter the other could; this was thought injustice. The aged and graver men to be ranked and equalized in labours and victuals, clothes, etc., with the meaner and younger sort, thought it some indignity and disrespect unto them. And for men's wives to be commanded to do service for other men, as dressing their meat, washing their clothes, etc., they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could many husbands well brook it. Upon the point all being to have alike, and all to do alike, they thought themselves in the like condition, and one as good as another; and so, if it did not cut off those relations that God hath set amongst men, yet it did at least much diminish and take off the mutual respects that should be preserved amongst them. And would have been worse if they had been men of another condition. Let none object this is men's corruption, and nothing to the course itself. I answer, seeing all men have this corruption in them, God in His wisdom saw another course fitter for them.

Wow, looks like old Bradford believed in . . . let's say he had a negative view of man's virtue. He had a certain view of human nature, one that went back to Genesis 3.

This part of the Pilgrims' history used to be widely taught.

But John, that is the point: the bad guys in charge use a set of false ideas to conceal failure and justify oppression. Of course their ideology is a lie; but lies can do great damage.

@Parzival

You say:

I mentioned Marxism as an example of evil, because it almost immediately resulted in evil. The Communist Manifesto was rooted in Marxism. Mao's philosophy is rooted in Marxism, as is the underpinning of the Kim dynasties "People's Republic of Korea." (There's an irony there— massive amounts of Asia supposedly kicked out Western European colonialism in order to establish the ideas of government put forth by a Western European political philosopher.

How do you reconcile what you say with this:

The truth is EVERYONE's past can be condemned by whatever current popular standards of morality and ethics hold sway— just as almost any culture can find a way to honor its past if the desire is there to do so. It really doesn't make one better to use "Presentism" to condemn the Past—

Or this:

You seem to be under a misapprehension— Neither I nor Doc are holding up the South for praise, nor are we saying it should not be condemned for the evil that it did. We are merely acknowledging that, as with EVERY DANG CULTURE ON THE PLANET, there is good and evil going on at the same time, sometimes even among people who act well with one hand and act evilly with the other.

OOf. What happened to you cant judge other nations and times by your own time and moral standards? What happened to that universal mix of good and evil?

Still not buying it. Marxism is mostly a tedious book and a college lecture or two for some, not a pleasant fantasy. My college students are well informed on this and have no stars in their eyes. They are generally adamant capitalists who want to have good careers, make money, and have a decent life.

Cuba is not Marxist. Venezuela is not Marxist. They are dictatorships. They practice right wing fascist-style control of their countries.

The average American has not the slightest idea of what Marxism means. They don't see it, hear it, live it, understand it. They only hear it is bad and therefore they should vote for right wing candidates.

I have heard "Imagine" a thousand times and barely paid any attention to the pie in the sky lyrics. Its a dream, a mood, thing not some call to action. I have certainly never cried "Marxism" when it is played. People would think I was crazy.

Beyond some of our academics, we are just not wired as a nation to think along Marxist lines. "All men are created equal" and related ideas are not Marxist. A Marxist "Who decides" question is not being asked of anyone I know anywhere in this country.

But 1950s style McCarthyism is a growing threat IMO. Even if there are a handful of Marxist believers in the US, the real danger is fear-mongering Marxism to gain political power.

Wow, looks like old Bradford believed in . . . let's say he had a negative view of man's virtue. He had a certain view of human nature, one that went back to Genesis 3.

This part of the Pilgrims' history used to be widely taught.

Are you replying to your own post as if some one else wrote it?

You think the pilgrims starved because they dabbled in the black arts of communism?

An early instance of better dead than red?

Yes, the Pilgrims nearly starved because of their communism. When they abandoned it things improved. And Bradford explains WHY, very clearly. It is because equal shares will not work with human nature. Not even among a small and quite homogeneous population that are hard-working and devout in servanthood beliefs. And when equal shares fails to work, sometimes those in control use coercion and terror to STAY in control in spite of their communism not working. See, e.g., Cuba and Russia and China, and a 100 million corpses.

Cuba and Russia and China, and a 100 million corpses.

If you had to choose between reversing those 100 million deaths or the ACW's 750,000, which would it be?

…looks like old Bradford believed in . . . let's say he had a negative view of man's virtue. He had a certain view of human nature, one that went back to Genesis 3. This part of the Pilgrims' history used to be widely taught.

The Pilgrims were religiously intolerant and bigoted. It was their way or no way at all. That's why Roger Williams was banished and then founded Rhode Island.

I'm surprised you didn't know this.

And the Bible is open to interpretation. And none of it was written down until Moses had it done. Before that it was passed down by word of mouth, and that can be very inaccurate and distorted depending on who's doing the telling.

???

Au pas, your argument makes no sense. I have repeatedly stated I am not trying to redeem the South nor the practice of slavery— though I note it goes back 10,000+ years, and I don't see you condemning the slavery of the Egyptians, the Babylonians, the Persians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Indians (of India), the Incas, the Aztecs, the Mayans, the various Native American tribes, tribal Africa, the various medieval empires in Africa, the Islamic conquerors, the Moors, the Barbary corsairs, the Ottoman Empire, etc., etc., etc.. As if cruelty and rape and murder and greed and racism somehow only sprung forth in one culture, ever.

So, yes, I can look at the South and America and condemn the evils of the past, as I can do for all the other cultures I mention, and I can do so for the evils of the various "socialist" nations, without assuming that every person or aspect of that culture thus becomes irredeemable or to be rejected. And yes, I can look at the evils of a governmental and economic system— which, ironically, actually mirrors the slavery South almost to a T, the educated elites (slaveowners) deciding what the ignorant workers (slaves) must do and can receive— and condemn it. But intellectually, I know that it's too easy to paint with a broad brush and assume that ALL who worked or fought within a system held that system as their ideal, and that their motivations were solely to support that system. That's false in almost every circumstance. Blaming all Southerners for the excesses of slavery, or claiming that they all fought to preserve slavery as their primary motivation, is as false as blaming all Iranians for the excesses of the totalitarian Ayatollahs. If I can see through that veil of evil, I can see through one over the past, too.
Tell me, do you believe that ALL Germans went to war in 1939 out of their love for Hitler and the Nazi party? Do you believe that ALL Cubans in the 1950s couldn't wait, like Che Guevara, to execute 12 year old boys? Do you believe every Japanese soldier and sailor in 1938 signed on in hopes of enjoying the "comfort girls" enslaved in Korea? I don't. I think some were scared, some were fooled, some were deluded into believing they were fighting for some Grand Cause or the Fatherland or the Workers of the World or the Divine Emperor or just to get ahead, wear a sharp-looking uniform and impress the girl down the street… a countless mass of reasons, some bad, some actually good in a certain human context, but twisted by leaders wholly given to evil.
I can see all that, yet I can also see that the overall system was indeed evil.

Slavery was evil… but not all Southerners who fought were motivated by it.
Nazism was evil… but not all Germans who fought were motivated by it.
Communism is/was evil… but not all Russians/Cubans/etc. who fought for it were motivated by it, or by the evils within it.

And so on.

It is NOT presentism to condemn a concept or system as evil.
It IS presentism to universally condemn those in the past who lived within a given system as evil.

The Pilgrims were religiously intolerant and bigoted. It was their way or no way at all. That's why Roger Williams was banished and then founded Rhode Island.

As were everybody else at the time, in one way or another. But what does that have to do with Doc's point?

Answer: Absolutely nothing.

Condemning someone for where they are wrong is easy. Admitting that sometimes they might have also been right has somehow become hard.

Charge, much as I wish that slavery had been abolished peaceably and the war not happened, I would undo the devastation of Communism, if I could only choose just one. Slavery was horrible but (at least in North America) it was not genocidal; the slave population increased. And there was some degree of cultural -- I won't say freedom, but looseness -- that allowed the development of a rich tradition in music and within Christianity. Nothing as evil as Stalin's artificial famines or the Cambodian holocaust. So the choice would be between very bad and much worse.

Kevin, lots of assumptions there. The Pilgrims were willing to go into a howling wilderness in order to be free to worship, without their kids growing up Dutch. Why is that intolerant? It was the Puritans who banished Roger Williams; "surprised you didn't know that." There is a difference.

Do you know the story of how Williams came to be banished? His (Calvinist) theology held that church membership should be restricted to those who had genuine conversion experiences. But how can you tell? People are good at deception, even (or ESPECIALLY) at self-deception. So Williams preached a sermon that questioned whether every member of his own church really deserved to be. So of course the congregation split down the middle, and the half who agreed with Williams left with him to found a new town and a new church (which was how New England grew).

So a few years pass, and Williams starts to think, just because someone agrees with me doesn't mean he is really saved. So he preaches another sermon, and gets kicked out, again.

Finally it is Williams and his wife, and he's not too sure about her.

At that point, having carried the theology to an extreme, he decides that whatever the church is, it is not one guy by himself out in the woods. So he declares that from now on he will worship with anyone who wants to worship with him. And at that point the Puritans kicked him out and he went off to Rhode Island.

Btw, my church (and most Calvinists) still holds to the doctrine of Election, but we realize that we cannot determine WHO God has chosen or wlll choose. So we just treat everyone as one of the Elect, or potentially so. Saves a lot of hassle and is very "tolerant", I suppose.

Parz: you are so right not blaming whole groups of people. Everyday people get caught up in events and sometime swept along even when they are unaware of underlying issues. Or they have been blinded by a set of beliefs from power seekers as in fascism or narcissistic personality cults.

Communism does not work, Marxism does not work. They are failed non-systems for tyrannical regimes to cover power moves. I would undo the devastation of tyranny above all else. It needs no fancy labels.

As for the Pilgrims, grim's the word. But I have seen so many movies where our heroes on a mission or adrift at sea share rations and water with everyone to the last in a crisis that I thought this was actually in the Constitution. I need only mention Humphrey Bogart in Sahara. As good as any college course.

Here's your "grim" Puritans: John Winthrop (who WAS a Puritan and not a Pilgrim): "A Model of Christian Charity"

Whatsoever we did, or ought to have, done, when we lived in England, the same must we do, and more also, where we go. That which the most in their churches maintain as truth in profession only, we must bring into familiar and constant practice; as in this duty of love, we must love brotherly without dissimulation, we must love one another with a pure heart fervently. We must bear one another's burdens. We must not look only on our own things, but also on the things of our brethren. Neither must we think that the Lord will bear with such failings at our hands as he do the from those among whom we have lived….

Thus stands the cause between God and us. We are entered into covenant with Him for this work. We have taken out a commission. The Lord hath given us leave to draw our own articles. We have professed to enterprise these and those accounts, upon these and those ends. We have hereupon besought Him of favor and blessing. Now if the Lord shall please to hear us, and bring us in peace to the place we desire, then hath he ratified this covenant and sealed our Commission, and will expect a strict performance of the articles contained in it; but if we shall neglect the observation of these articles which are the ends we have propounded, and, dissembling with our God, shall fall to embrace this present world and prosecute our carnal intentions, seeking great things for ourselves and our posterity, the Lord will surely break out in wrath against us; be revenged of such a [sinful] people and make us know the price of the breaches of such a covenant.

Now the only way to avoid this shipwreck, and to provide for our posterity, is to follow the counsel of Micah, to do justly, to love mercy, to walk humbly with our God. For this end, we must be knit together, in this work, as one man.

We must entertain each other in brotherly affection. We must be willing to abridge ourselves of our superfluities, for the supply of other's necessities. We must uphold a familiar commerce together in all meekness, gentleness, patience and liberality. We must delight in each other; make other's conditions our own; rejoice together, mourn together, labor and suffer together, always having before our eyes our commission and community in the work, as members of the same body. So shall we keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace. The Lord will be our God, and delight to dwell among us, as his own people, and will command a blessing upon us in all our ways. So that we shall see much
more of his wisdom, power, goodness and truth, than formerly we have been acquainted with.

???
Au pas, your argument makes no sense.

That's probably because I am making no argument, you are. I am merely trying to reconcile the inconsistencies. Perhaps they are readily explainable and you deserve an opportunity to present as much.

I have repeatedly stated I am not trying to redeem the South nor the practice of slavery— though I note it goes back 10,000+ years, and I don't see you condemning the slavery of the Egyptians, the Babylonians, the Persians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Indians (of India), the Incas, the Aztecs, the Mayans, the various Native American tribes, tribal Africa, the various medieval empires in Africa, the Islamic conquerors, the Moors, the Barbary corsairs, the Ottoman Empire, etc., etc., etc.. As if cruelty and rape and murder and greed and racism somehow only sprung forth in one culture, ever.

I didn't realize that I have an obligation to recite a condemnation for everyone else's behavior when focusing on a specific bad act. It would seem that by your approach there can never be a break from abuses; my father beat me and therefore I beat my son? Rather than be a mindless slave to the past, I choose to evolve socially. Additionally, those cultures and countries are not mine. I think it incumbent on myself to clean my own house before pointing fingers at others.

Also, no one is trying to rehabilitate or "not" rehabilitate slavery, rape or murder in any of those Empires, times or cultures. In fact, I only ever hear these arguments on behalf of pro antebellum southerners. I have never once seen proponents of the Roman slavery or massacres saying, "well the CSA also had slaves and committed mass murder." Because, as you assert, most of those pointing out the reverse of this fact (That the Romans had slaves, thus why pick on the CSA) never admit to rehabilitating or supporting the South's behavior, I have to assume it's just one of those odd coincidences of life that it always seems to appear that way.

So, yes, I can look at the South and America and condemn the evils of the past, as I can do for all the other cultures I mention, and I can do so for the evils of the various "socialist" nations, without assuming that every person or aspect of that culture thus becomes irredeemable or to be rejected. And yes, I can look at the evils of a governmental and economic system— which, ironically, actually mirrors the slavery South almost to a T, the educated elites (slaveowners) deciding what the ignorant workers (slaves) must do and can receive— and condemn it.

OK, so it appears you CAN judge the past by your own standards. I see you've come up with a convenient separation but I don't see it any differently than judging the Old South to be rotten socially. It didn't mirror slavery, you need to rethink this. Incidentally, all the places where these so called socialist outrages occurred replaced regimes which were far worse in terms of treating people slave-like (Which is I think what you mean). Anyway, we are hopping around the original context which is that Marxism is directly responsible for 100 million dead not whether large amounts of people died under systems claiming to be "Marxist".

Tell me, do you believe that ALL Germans went to war in 1939 out of their love for Hitler and the Nazi party? Do you believe that ALL Cubans in the 1950s couldn't wait, like Che Guevara, to execute 12 year old boys? Do you believe every Japanese soldier and sailor in 1938 signed on in hopes of enjoying the "comfort girls" enslaved in Korea? I don't. I think some were scared, some were fooled, some were deluded into believing they were fighting for some Grand Cause or the Fatherland or the Workers of the World or the Divine Emperor or just to get ahead, wear a sharp-looking uniform and impress the girl down the street… a countless mass of reasons, some bad, some actually good in a certain human context, but twisted by leaders wholly given to evil.

You tell me. Or rather, convince me with something better than "because there were some good people on both sides, we cannot judge them."

My belief about the Old South and the ACW is the prevailing one and I am not the one advocating for subjective, granular understanding of everyone that lived back then, nor do I have any obligation to do so. Any such burden rests with people arguing in the other direction and if they cannot shift the burden, then it is not for me to explain why.

It is NOT presentism to condemn a concept or system as evil.
It IS presentism to universally condemn those in the past who lived within a given system as evil

Again, this is your split hair approach. I have no problems judging the past by today's standards and I believe this is the traditional examination of history. All the best histories I read make judgments about the people, motives and actions. Someone, somewhere (almost certainly to defend colonialism) has cooked up this platitude for you, and others, and served it up; complete with an apple in its mouth and parsley in its ears. Although cataloging facts has its place, history without moral evaluation is, as you have demonstrated, only deployed in cases where the utterer is "not" rehabilitating the subject.

Now in the specific case of the Romans, they are distant and far and no longer affect my life or rather their influence is diluted. I can read about how they lived without worry that it will take place here.

However, when it comes to the Old South and slavery, it was not that long ago and it was right here. The results of that bad behavior are still with us and perhaps even more alive and well today than I am comfortable with. I have every right to judge it by whatever standards I feel appropriate.

Further, you give me the impression that you believe the Founders and the Constitution are to be somewhat strictly followed. It would be odd if the dead could both control me and tell me how to behave by the standards of their day but I was blocked from judging or evaluating them by the standards of my own…and I thought you were against slavery.

So Charge, back atcha: The two main "models" of colonial life and culture were Virginia and New England. (You could add in the Quakers, I suppose, but they started half a century late and lost influence even within Pennsylvania.) If you HAD TO CHOOSE one strand or another -- would it be the gentlemen of Va and their slaves, or the grim Puritans?

Of course that is counter-factual and impossible, but we do understand that the mighty oak that is America grew out of two very different roots. And would have been quite different had there been only one of the two.

Charge, much as I wish that slavery had been abolished peaceably and the war not happened, I would undo the devastation of Communism, if I could only choose just one. Slavery was horrible but (at least in North America) it was not genocidal; the slave population increased. And there was some degree of cultural -- I won't say freedom, but looseness -- that allowed the development of a rich tradition in music and within Christianity. Nothing as evil as Stalin's artificial famines or the Cambodian holocaust. So the choice would be between very bad and much worse.

Interesting that for someone who constantly touts religion and morality that it is more a matter of the bottom line statistics rather than any moral degradation.

Charge, no, that does not follow. Yes, millions of deaths in genocides is more than/worse than the deprivation of freedom of millions. But the moral degradation of socialism/Marxism is far worse than under slavery. The slaves, after all, were NOT morally degraded, or not much; or do you argue differently? The sin of slavery is on the masters and not on the slaves; although powerlessness does have its own temptations, they are not as great as the temptations of power, as, e.g., Jefferson understood and described it in NOTES ON VIRGINIA.

The main economic loss of slavery fell on the slaves and secondarily on the poor whites and the whole south. The main political loss was obviously on the slaves. But the moral loss fell most heavily on the masters.

There is a vast literature about "the Soul of Man Under Socialism." See the GULAG, etc. Slaves had Christianity, and generally were able to maintain stable families (though the threat of breakup was always there). They had HOPE; their music and understanding of scripture was built on it. "Time on the Cross." "Go down, Moses . . . ." Living under a socialist or Marxist regime is far more terrible.

And here is another grim Puritan, Doc. Cotton Mather:

A]bout this time [1631] the Indians began to be quarrelsome touching the Bounds of the Land which they had sold to the English, but God ended the Controversy by sending the Smallpox amongst the Indians…

Mighty handy! They were nearly decimated but still managed a series of military actions until they became Christians, then we swindled the land and gave them the boot. Last of the Mohicans was a real thing – but not like the movie.

We have been redistributing wealth here via taxes for many years and it works well. I live in New England where we pay more in taxes than we get back in aid from the Feds. Its the opposite in Kentucky where I have family. No problem. They need a hand.

We sent the farm states at least 20 billion in aid after the new tariffs nearly wiped them out during the last administration. Only too glad to help.

A number of states get back more than they pay into the system. Socialism? I don't own the means of production for pork, but I have helped pay for it. And I enjoy the results. Chops, mainly.

I must not be academic enough for these discussions. I just see what I see.