Synchronicity sometimes bats for Satan

That's the shitty Confederate equivalent of being the only starship in the sector.

Logistics win wars, it's always been true.

I hate that you’re correct and that it didn’t occur to me despite knowing what you lol 😂

“All in all it’s just another wall around a wall…”

Xzibit was a leading commander under Caesar in gaul and macedonia

Greek history as well. The reason Syracuse won against the Athenians was they were about to out build the Athenian wall with their own wall.

I notice they didn't give him a "Not Horse F*cker Award". Hahahahahaha!!!!

"My 'Not a Paedo Award' is raising a lot of questons already answered by my award"

I just wish he would shut up sometimes. You can hear Robert sighing when Prop starts to talk. Can’t just a few words, it’s story time every time Prop talks. Annoying.

Sorta-kinda, but none of it matters in terms of the overall institution. Read "Beloved" by Toni Morrison, and it'll answer that question more thoroughly than anyone on the internet can.

if it's a question of morality, the act of continuing to own that person is a greater evil than any polite or benign action could overcome.

You can do evil without being unnecessarily cruel about it. Which is still evil certainly and should be treated as such. But, I guess, better than someone that is both evil and deliberately cruel. Just not better enough.

I was watching a documentary about Rome and the lady was like "you can tell how they cared for their slaves, they buried them in the family plot/crypt" idk kinda sounds like they could also be bragging about being able to purchase, feed/clothe, and nicely bury someone. A status symbol.

Well lets put it this way; How would modern history label a slave owner who was actually trying to do good? "Used thier plantation to help slaves escape", and "Bought and freed slaves" are both terms I've heard for what at the time might have looked like a "nice slave owner" at the time.

Yeah. Rome's military sometimes really sucks really hard. #Teutoburgforest #Carrhae #Edessa

That was Rome's amateur old fashioned army going against Hannibal's professionals. Rome later made their own professional army and that is the one that did all the engineering and all that.

​@@thomasb7464Nobody is invincible.

80s could never handle John Brown

He'd have killed Reagan. So I mean, yeah, they did drop the ball here.

Ooh, can I have some?

Hell yeah, cousin.

Not sure the Hayward shepherd the bald man that was killed by Browns men would see it that way

​@@davidstanford9933 What a pathetic response. "One of John Browns men killed a man despite John Brown directly ordering his men only to kill under extreme circumstances. Clearly that man would think John Brown was insane." Just a truly idiotic statement

@@TayBridgeDisaster well that killing people in front of their families. That’s kind of cooky

@@davidstanford9933 given that those men were also involved in bleeding Kansas, their families probably didn't think he was insane. Violent? Sure

@@davidstanford9933 Incidentally his name was not Hayward Shepherd. It was Haywood Shepherd. The reason his name is so commonly misspelled is because the white supremacists who shout his name from the rooftops didn't give a shit about him or how he died, only how their agenda could be furthered by coopting his memory.

No reason not to repeat the truth 🙌🏻

The last U.S. slave was freed in 1961.

That's not really an officer academy thing, though. That's something you polish in boot camp or something.

That's not something Officers handle; that's all down to good NCOs.

I started listening without checking to see if this was one of the finished ones. Now I regret it. Mooooore 😫

It was basically just the description of Mr. Darcy, lmao.

Confederate Furries.

True, but it’s also true that most officers in the military are not West Point trained. They are largely from ROTC or OCS. Further, the bulk of engineer training for both officers and enlisted personnel occurs at the Engineer School at Ft.Leonard Wood in Missouri.

@@gerryphilly53 That's where the "had" comes into play in this statement.

It's like Alan Smithee for pricks

He was also an extremely limited general.

@@philipmalcolm4550 to be fair, I think that probably applies to most generals in that war, and he seems to have done a lot with very limited resources. His troops clearly held him in high regard, and I think that speaks a lot for his abilities. But, as I said, I haven't done a deep dive into him, so maybe I'm just spouting old tropes from Shelby Foote - who I know was 'verra verra taken with heem - romantically speakin' that is'.

He was a fantastic tactician but an abysmal strategist. Additionally, he had a medieval view o warfare. Namely that war was an honorable affair settled by courage and manly virtue. This was a view completely unsuited to the industrial battlefield as demonstrated by Napoleon and adopted by the officer corps of European nations. Honestly, ever since the infantry revolution of the late middle ages and early Renaissance this concept of warfare was untenable outside of propaganda. Even prior to that event, the myth of honorable warfare was only maintained by a mostly illiterate warrior class overmatching the bulk of completely illiterate and untrained conscripts. In short, Lee was a dipshit who happened to be good at bold, high casualty maneuvers and eventually ran out of personnel and equipment because he was chasing the dream of being a heroic commander rather than actually commanding effectively.

@@colinsanders9397 hmm - I'm not sold yet. I was under the impression that he was a great strategist - he led the Union a merry dance throughout the east, and if you look at casualty figures, by and large he always suffered less than the Union forces he was up against. I don't think you can blame him for having a 'medieval view of warfare' - the Civil War was a game changer in certain respects, but 'Napoleonic' battles were the accepted way of warfare up til the end of the century. They were always a question of throwing lines of men against each other - they were still doing that in 1914 and the French were still wearing bright red and blue uniforms. The ego thing is an interesting point - when you contrast him with someone like Grant or Sherman I can see how there's a certain 'glorification' going on as you say. I don't think that necessarily makes him a bad commander, but it would account for the times when he should have bugged out rather than stay and suffer more casualties. Then again, you could argue that the more sober minded Union Generals that kept on stubbornly throwing men into the meat grinder are just as bad. I wonder if a good person to use as a yardstick is Custer. Absolute A hole who combined massive ego with complete disregard for the lives of his men, and fully bought into the heroic status of the dashing military leader. I don't think Lee was as bad as that- as a general, that is.

@@bengreen171 Grant ran circles around him throughout the entire war. Lee was competent, but not exceptional, and when Grant took over the Union's military he was basically doomed. It was a pretty endemic issue for most of the Southern Generals (an the northern ones towards the beginning). He, and they largely, tending to think extremely directly in winning battles in spectacular ways, and thought of the war as a series of said battles that would eventually end in victory or defeat. So they tended to do pretty well in direct conflicts, but failed to understand the larger war and how those battles could be leveraged to remove the Norths ability to fight. Grant did not have that problem, and despite often doing things that seemed riskier in the short term, he leveraged everything. He just understood what it would take to win the war. What places to attack, what places to defend, when to push. He also was much more willing to do things like attacking supply lines and the industrial/agricultural bases in the South, and other such stuff. He was well ahead of his time. (Imperfect, of course, he was human and made mistakes, but he recovered from them better.) However, the idea that Grant suffered inordinately larger casualty figures than Lee is a part of the overall myth. Lee actually lost significantly more people than Grant did. (~155k vs ~210k) which might have been due to being in more conflicts, but the ratio was worse for lee too. Grants kill/loss ratio was 1.24, and Lee was 1.14. So Grant numerically performed better than Lee in both absolute losses and in his ratio of casualties inflicted to casualties incurred. The "Butcher" reputation that Grant got is largely made up in the era and later amplified by Lost Cause stuff. I should note though, that the estimation of casualties is only ever an estimate. Further, death from "other" causes than battle were more common than deaths in battle. If you take the historical loss numbers for the war, which are probably a pretty big underestimate, then the North lost 360k total, versus the Souths 258, but as a percentage of their overall forces, that is a Norther loss of 18% and a Southern loss of ~33%. It is difficult to tell if the absolute losses are due to an imbalance in battle casualties or just the fact that with more people in the army, more people are available to die of disease and accident. The records, particularly on the part of the Southern army, are abysmal. I would not be surprised to find that the south also really, really under-counted their number of losses.

Ali was a descendent of one of the slaves Cassius Clay helped. That slave appreciated it and wanted to pass on the name. He told his son the story, and he named _his_ son Cassius Clay out of respect. I wonder if Ali knew where his name came from before he changed it. But yeah, I heard the story of Clay on The Dollop, and jeez. He doesn't pass the pedo test, but the dude was an absolute beast of a fighter... as an OLD MAN and partially insane (he lived to like 90), three guys busted into his house... he killed two and severly wounded the third, and I think that was in his 70s or 80s. And when he was younger, he supposedly pieced up something like 10 Redcoats by himself... got shot halfway through them and was left for dead, then he got up a few minutes later, went after them and messed up some more. Dude was a human honey badger, and he physically beat the shite out of and dueled pro-slavery types... not one of them could kill him.

They were slaver kids. I feel bad that they died but then I think of the kids that were also sold under that system and I feel no sympathy.

It boils down to the social system of the time caused the incident. Owning people was perpetuated by the families of the kids and forced those crushed under this system to this point.

As a great man once said "Man, fuck them kids."

@@FlippantHamGoon Exactly. Should the people have killed any kids? Absolutely not. But that is a limited moral choice to that particular situation. It is a few people making an incorrect choice while under *extreme* duress after being systematically abused in the worst way possible for generations. They are clearly not in the best place to be worrying about moral choices when their only real choice is fight or die. The ones who created the system and abused them to the point that they had to go into armed rebellion to even have a glimmer of hope are the ones who actually created the problem. You cannot beat, rape and kill a whole people's kids for hundreds of years and expect them to behave perfectly when they finally try to stop you.