NATION

PASSWORD

End the lies: The Confederacy was about slavery

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Maurepas
Post Czar
 
Posts: 36403
Founded: Apr 17, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Maurepas » Mon Apr 05, 2010 2:51 pm

I've heard your agruments before, and they still rely on trying to paint everyone involved with the brush of the Elites in the South....

Unfortunately, alot more people were involved than the ones that wrote those documents, just as there were alot more people involved in the Revolution than just religious puritans...In effect it is the same fallacy that is used when they call all Communists, Stalinists, and it is just as much a fallacy here at is it is there...

Still, glad to see you're still around at least, you've been missed, :)
Last edited by Maurepas on Mon Apr 05, 2010 2:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Melkor Unchained
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 4647
Founded: Antiquity
Ex-Nation

Postby Melkor Unchained » Mon Apr 05, 2010 2:51 pm

Natapoc wrote:
Melkor Unchained wrote:I'm not sure I would say slavery was the direct cause of the war (by itself) but it was the issue that made all the other differences between the north and south irreconcilable.

But has anyone pointed out yet (especially after all this talk about Britain) that slavery began under European rule, and that the colonies were set up to depend on it? Not that I'm defending the practice, but I can't help but roll my eyes when Europeans wax judgmental on American race relations. Not saying that's happening in this thread, but I find it intensely hypocritical when Euros scold us over slavery when they were still slaughtering Africans well after the US Civil war.


It is not hypocritical so long as the "European" in question also scolded involved nations of europe for the same.

True, but in my experience many of them don't. :shock:
"I am the Elder King: Melkor, first and mightiest of the Valar, who was before the world, and made it. The shadow of my purpose lies upon Arda, and all that is in it bends slowly and surely to my will. But upon all whom you love my thought shall weigh as a cloud of Doom, and it shall bring them down into darkness and despair."

User avatar
Natapoc
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 19864
Founded: Antiquity
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Natapoc » Mon Apr 05, 2010 2:52 pm

Fartsniffage wrote:
Natapoc wrote:This was considered a basic human right. I realize rights have gone out of style lately in favor of nihilism but taxation without representation was seen as a fundamental violation of natural rights.


What are the narural right and from where do they get their authority?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights
Did you see a ghost?

User avatar
United Southernours
Diplomat
 
Posts: 649
Founded: Jan 22, 2010
New York Times Democracy

Postby United Southernours » Mon Apr 05, 2010 2:53 pm

Morrill Tariff. I'd do you Libs some good to learn about it.
The Confederacy of United Southernours
Factbook
United Southernours Wiki Page
President: Robert Enfeild
Leader of the Opposition: Congressman Harold Byrd
Capital: Richmond, Virginia
Armed Forces: 2,000,000 Enlisted Men
1 Confederate dollar = $1.6440
GDP: C$17,034,246,833,182.08
Government Spending: C$1,903,688,636,850.00
Government Revenue: C$1,846,577,977,744.50
States: 28
Current Government: 2020

User avatar
North Suran
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9974
Founded: Jul 12, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby North Suran » Mon Apr 05, 2010 2:54 pm

Melkor Unchained wrote:I'm not sure I would say slavery was the direct cause of the war (by itself) but it was the issue that made all the other differences between the north and south irreconcilable.

True. While slavery may have been at the heart of the Confederate Government, it was not the sole factor which motivated the Southern population to seceede.

Melkor Unchained wrote:But has anyone pointed out yet (especially after all this talk about Britain) that slavery began under European rule, and that the colonies were set up to depend on it? Not that I'm defending the practice, but I can't help but roll my eyes when Europeans wax judgmental on American race relations. Not saying that's happening in this thread, but I find it intensely hypocritical when Euros scold us over slavery when they were still slaughtering Africans well after the US Civil war.

The problem is, not only did Europe take the lead in the abolition movement, it was also the most active in abolishing the slave trade itself. Furthermore, while racism was still high in the 20th century, it was not institutionalised as in the USA. Furthermore, while the US Government had seen fit to condemn European imperialism pre-WWII, it immediately reversed on this position when it became convienent for the USA due to the threat of the USSR.
Neu Mitanni wrote:As for NS, his latest statement is grounded in ignorance and contrary to fact, much to the surprise of all NSGers.


User avatar
Maurepas
Post Czar
 
Posts: 36403
Founded: Apr 17, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Maurepas » Mon Apr 05, 2010 2:56 pm

North Suran wrote:
Melkor Unchained wrote:I'm not sure I would say slavery was the direct cause of the war (by itself) but it was the issue that made all the other differences between the north and south irreconcilable.

True. While slavery may have been at the heart of the Confederate Government, it was not the sole factor which motivated the Southern population to seceede.

Melkor Unchained wrote:But has anyone pointed out yet (especially after all this talk about Britain) that slavery began under European rule, and that the colonies were set up to depend on it? Not that I'm defending the practice, but I can't help but roll my eyes when Europeans wax judgmental on American race relations. Not saying that's happening in this thread, but I find it intensely hypocritical when Euros scold us over slavery when they were still slaughtering Africans well after the US Civil war.

The problem is, not only did Europe take the lead in the abolition movement, it was also the most active in abolishing the slave trade itself. Furthermore, while racism was still high in the 20th century, it was not institutionalised as in the USA. Furthermore, while the US Government had seen fit to condemn European imperialism pre-WWII, it immediately reversed on this position when it became convienent for the USA due to the threat of the USSR.

Yeah, but, I've always felt Europe to be a bit Hypocritical in that endeavour, Portugal may have made slavery illegal in Portugal, but, A) there's really no use for slaves in Portugal, and B) It continued to profit from it through its holdings in Brazil...

The same can be said of Britain in India and Asia, and France in Southeast Asia and Africa, etc....
Last edited by Maurepas on Mon Apr 05, 2010 2:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Yootopia
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8410
Founded: Dec 28, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby Yootopia » Mon Apr 05, 2010 2:56 pm

Melkor Unchained wrote:
Lacadaemon wrote:
Dempublicents1 wrote:You mean an economy and way of life built on slave ownership?


-ish. Slavery was a large part of it, but the two blocs had fundamentally different economies (structurally) and wanted fundamentally different things from the federal government. That would have been the case whether there had been slavery or not.

*winces*

A better response would have been: "... as established by the British." :p

A bit of a Super Bold Claim right there, since real economic base of the CSA was of course in Narlins, which was French, and Alabama, which was also French. Texas was also not a British territory, and was kind of important for the Confederacy.
End the Modigarchy now.

User avatar
North Suran
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9974
Founded: Jul 12, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby North Suran » Mon Apr 05, 2010 2:56 pm

Melkor Unchained wrote:
Lacadaemon wrote:
Dempublicents1 wrote:You mean an economy and way of life built on slave ownership?


-ish. Slavery was a large part of it, but the two blocs had fundamentally different economies (structurally) and wanted fundamentally different things from the federal government. That would have been the case whether there had been slavery or not.

*winces*

A better response would have been: "... as established by the British." :p

Just because the previous regime established something doesn't mean that their successors are exempt from guilt if they decide to continue it. For example, Uzbekistan.
Neu Mitanni wrote:As for NS, his latest statement is grounded in ignorance and contrary to fact, much to the surprise of all NSGers.


User avatar
Lacadaemon
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5322
Founded: Aug 26, 2004
Ex-Nation

Postby Lacadaemon » Mon Apr 05, 2010 2:57 pm

Melkor Unchained wrote:But it couldn't have "take[n] off" without the framework put in place by European colonists. ;)


I'm not convinced about that. There's always a surplus of poor people. And so, if you look at 1816, and the great migration from the North East to west, had there not been entrenched slavery, those chaps could very easily ended up sharecropping in the south instead. Done and done. The only reason why they didn't go south was because nobody wanted them in the south owing to the slaves.

Anyway, the south was never going to be some mercantilist pro tarrif bloc. Though probably without slavery things would not have gotten so out of hand.
The kind of middle-class mentality which actuates both those responsible for strategy and government has little knowledge of the new psychology and organizing ability of the totalitarian States. The forces we are fighting are governed neither by the old strategy nor follow the old tactics.

User avatar
Maurepas
Post Czar
 
Posts: 36403
Founded: Apr 17, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Maurepas » Mon Apr 05, 2010 2:58 pm

Yootopia wrote:
Melkor Unchained wrote:
Lacadaemon wrote:
Dempublicents1 wrote:You mean an economy and way of life built on slave ownership?


-ish. Slavery was a large part of it, but the two blocs had fundamentally different economies (structurally) and wanted fundamentally different things from the federal government. That would have been the case whether there had been slavery or not.

*winces*

A better response would have been: "... as established by the British." :p

A bit of a Super Bold Claim right there, since real economic base of the CSA was of course in Narlins, which was French, and Alabama, which was also French. Texas was also not a British territory, and was kind of important for the Confederacy.

Nah, the real economic base of the Confederacy was always the Delta in Mississippi, which was the problem of course, Cotton alone isn't much of an economic base...

New Orleans was the most prosperous city, but, it was largely only prosperous for itself, through the port and the various gambling/bars involved, still is to this day really...

More important really was Virginia and Atlanta where the few manufacturing centers were...

User avatar
Yootopia
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8410
Founded: Dec 28, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby Yootopia » Mon Apr 05, 2010 2:58 pm

Maurepas wrote:The same can be said of Britain in India and Asia.

Err how? We might have had poor people with a really crap quality of life in India and Asia, but then we did back in Blighty itself throughout this period.
End the Modigarchy now.

User avatar
Panzerjaeger
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9856
Founded: Sep 15, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Panzerjaeger » Mon Apr 05, 2010 3:02 pm

Maurepas wrote:
Yootopia wrote:
Melkor Unchained wrote:
Lacadaemon wrote:
Dempublicents1 wrote:You mean an economy and way of life built on slave ownership?


-ish. Slavery was a large part of it, but the two blocs had fundamentally different economies (structurally) and wanted fundamentally different things from the federal government. That would have been the case whether there had been slavery or not.

*winces*

A better response would have been: "... as established by the British." :p

A bit of a Super Bold Claim right there, since real economic base of the CSA was of course in Narlins, which was French, and Alabama, which was also French. Texas was also not a British territory, and was kind of important for the Confederacy.

Nah, the real economic base of the Confederacy was always the Delta in Mississippi, which was the problem of course, Cotton alone isn't much of an economic base...

New Orleans was the most prosperous city, but, it was largely only prosperous for itself, through the port and the various gambling/bars involved, still is to this day really...

More important really was Virginia and Atlanta where the few manufacturing centers were...

And when those got razed to the ground Goodbye Confederacy. People seem to assume Sherman's March to the Sea was just to prove a point when in reality it was to destroy a key Confederate Industrial Stronghold.
Friendly Neighborhood Fascist™
ФАШИЗМ БЕЗГРАНИЧНЫЙ И КРАСНЫЙ
Caninope wrote:Toyota: Keep moving forward, even when you don't want to!

Christmahanikwanzikah wrote:Timothy McVeigh casts... Pyrotechnics!

Greater Americania wrote:lol "No Comrade Ivan! Don't stick your head in there! That's the wood chi...!"

New Kereptica wrote:Fascism: because people are too smart nowadays.

User avatar
Maurepas
Post Czar
 
Posts: 36403
Founded: Apr 17, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Maurepas » Mon Apr 05, 2010 3:03 pm

Yootopia wrote:
Maurepas wrote:The same can be said of Britain in India and Asia.

Err how? We might have had poor people with a really crap quality of life in India and Asia, but then we did back in Blighty itself throughout this period.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in ... bt_bondage
Gyan Prakash, [78] is of the opinion that the abolition of slavery in India in 1843 constructed the British government as a force of reason and progress, while it actually refashioned slavery and turned it into debt-bondage. In form of a detailed case study, he has studied the changing fate of the kamias, a group of agricultural labourers, who were largely members of a larger outcaste Bhuniya community in the Gaya district of south Bihar. These kamias had lohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_ ... ageng-term relations to landlords (maliks), who mostly belonged to upper castes. In fact, this kamia-malik tie was shaped like a patron-client relationship as is evident for example through the institution of kamiauti, a transaction of grain, money and a plot of land given to the kamia by the landlord if the former’s son married -"these relations were structured as dependent ties that represented the landlord as a munificent patron and the labourer as his dependent subject".


It's not traditional slavery of course, but, still is, imo, rather similar to that which was done in the Northeastern United States at the time, and to illegal immigrants in the US today...

User avatar
Melkor Unchained
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 4647
Founded: Antiquity
Ex-Nation

Postby Melkor Unchained » Mon Apr 05, 2010 3:05 pm

North Suran wrote:
Melkor Unchained wrote:
Lacadaemon wrote:
Dempublicents1 wrote:You mean an economy and way of life built on slave ownership?


-ish. Slavery was a large part of it, but the two blocs had fundamentally different economies (structurally) and wanted fundamentally different things from the federal government. That would have been the case whether there had been slavery or not.

*winces*

A better response would have been: "... as established by the British." :p

Just because the previous regime established something doesn't mean that their successors are exempt from guilt if they decide to continue it. For example, Uzbekistan.

I understand, but in the grand scheme of things it didn't take all that long for the slavery issue to come to a head. Britain herself only abolished slavery in 1807 or 1833 (depending on which law you think had the greater actual effect on abolition), and America followed suit a couple decades later.

@Yootopia re: the French: yes, but the original colonies were established by the Brits, who were the dominant cultural force in that area for some time. I'm not talking so much about the Confederacy per se as I'm citing the cultural and economic forces that led to its creation. By the time the Civil War rolled around, America had started to develop its own culture anyway; similar to (in some ways) European culture but different in that it was a fusion of French, British, Irish, German, etc.
"I am the Elder King: Melkor, first and mightiest of the Valar, who was before the world, and made it. The shadow of my purpose lies upon Arda, and all that is in it bends slowly and surely to my will. But upon all whom you love my thought shall weigh as a cloud of Doom, and it shall bring them down into darkness and despair."

User avatar
Yootopia
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8410
Founded: Dec 28, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby Yootopia » Mon Apr 05, 2010 3:05 pm

We still have that bond today, Maurepas. That's how a bank can take your house if you don't pay a mortgage.
End the Modigarchy now.

User avatar
North Suran
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9974
Founded: Jul 12, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby North Suran » Mon Apr 05, 2010 3:05 pm

Maurepas wrote:
Yootopia wrote:
Maurepas wrote:The same can be said of Britain in India and Asia.

Err how? We might have had poor people with a really crap quality of life in India and Asia, but then we did back in Blighty itself throughout this period.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in ... bt_bondage
Gyan Prakash, [78] is of the opinion that the abolition of slavery in India in 1843 constructed the British government as a force of reason and progress, while it actually refashioned slavery and turned it into debt-bondage. In form of a detailed case study, he has studied the changing fate of the kamias, a group of agricultural labourers, who were largely members of a larger outcaste Bhuniya community in the Gaya district of south Bihar. These kamias had lohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_ ... ageng-term relations to landlords (maliks), who mostly belonged to upper castes. In fact, this kamia-malik tie was shaped like a patron-client relationship as is evident for example through the institution of kamiauti, a transaction of grain, money and a plot of land given to the kamia by the landlord if the former’s son married -"these relations were structured as dependent ties that represented the landlord as a munificent patron and the labourer as his dependent subject".


It's not traditional slavery of course, but, still is, imo, rather similar to that which was done in the Northeastern United States at the time, and to illegal immigrants in the US today...

So-called 'economic slavery' is a rather controversial subject. At any rate, it is certainly non-comparable to institutionalised slavery.
Neu Mitanni wrote:As for NS, his latest statement is grounded in ignorance and contrary to fact, much to the surprise of all NSGers.


User avatar
Maurepas
Post Czar
 
Posts: 36403
Founded: Apr 17, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Maurepas » Mon Apr 05, 2010 3:05 pm

Panzerjaeger wrote:
Maurepas wrote:
Yootopia wrote:
Melkor Unchained wrote:
Lacadaemon wrote:
Dempublicents1 wrote:You mean an economy and way of life built on slave ownership?


-ish. Slavery was a large part of it, but the two blocs had fundamentally different economies (structurally) and wanted fundamentally different things from the federal government. That would have been the case whether there had been slavery or not.

*winces*

A better response would have been: "... as established by the British." :p

A bit of a Super Bold Claim right there, since real economic base of the CSA was of course in Narlins, which was French, and Alabama, which was also French. Texas was also not a British territory, and was kind of important for the Confederacy.

Nah, the real economic base of the Confederacy was always the Delta in Mississippi, which was the problem of course, Cotton alone isn't much of an economic base...

New Orleans was the most prosperous city, but, it was largely only prosperous for itself, through the port and the various gambling/bars involved, still is to this day really...

More important really was Virginia and Atlanta where the few manufacturing centers were...

And when those got razed to the ground Goodbye Confederacy. People seem to assume Sherman's March to the Sea was just to prove a point when in reality it was to destroy a key Confederate Industrial Stronghold.

Yep, the South could survive until the powder mills in Atlanta and Augusta are gone, after that, it's prettymuch the end....
Last edited by Maurepas on Mon Apr 05, 2010 3:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Phenia
Senator
 
Posts: 3809
Founded: May 06, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Phenia » Mon Apr 05, 2010 3:06 pm

Melkor Unchained wrote:But has anyone pointed out yet (especially after all this talk about Britain) that slavery began under European rule, and that the colonies were set up to depend on it? Not that I'm defending the practice, but I can't help but roll my eyes when Europeans wax judgmental on American race relations. Not saying that's happening in this thread, but I find it intensely hypocritical when Euros scold us over slavery when they were still slaughtering Africans well after the US Civil war.


They had however outlawed slavery before the US did. And it's not as if the US wasn't slaughtering people in the name of imperialism after the ACW. Philippine-American War for example. The "pacification campaign."

I don't find it hypocritical to scold anyone over slavery, unless you happen to support slavery or slave ownership yourself.

User avatar
Maurepas
Post Czar
 
Posts: 36403
Founded: Apr 17, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Maurepas » Mon Apr 05, 2010 3:06 pm

Yootopia wrote:We still have that bond today, Maurepas. That's how a bank can take your house if you don't pay a mortgage.

And I included today, I don't consider it any better, actually, I consider it fairly worse, tbqh...

User avatar
Panzerjaeger
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9856
Founded: Sep 15, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Panzerjaeger » Mon Apr 05, 2010 3:06 pm

Maurepas wrote:
Panzerjaeger wrote:
Maurepas wrote:
Yootopia wrote:
Melkor Unchained wrote:
Lacadaemon wrote:
Dempublicents1 wrote:You mean an economy and way of life built on slave ownership?


-ish. Slavery was a large part of it, but the two blocs had fundamentally different economies (structurally) and wanted fundamentally different things from the federal government. That would have been the case whether there had been slavery or not.

*winces*

A better response would have been: "... as established by the British." :p

A bit of a Super Bold Claim right there, since real economic base of the CSA was of course in Narlins, which was French, and Alabama, which was also French. Texas was also not a British territory, and was kind of important for the Confederacy.

Nah, the real economic base of the Confederacy was always the Delta in Mississippi, which was the problem of course, Cotton alone isn't much of an economic base...

New Orleans was the most prosperous city, but, it was largely only prosperous for itself, through the port and the various gambling/bars involved, still is to this day really...

More important really was Virginia and Atlanta where the few manufacturing centers were...

And when those got razed to the ground Goodbye Confederacy. People seem to assume Sherman's March to the Sea was just to prove a point when in reality it was to destroy a key Confederate Industrial Stronghold.

Yep, the South could survive until the powder mills in Atlanta and Augusta are gone, after that, it's prettymuch the end....

Kind of takes the bluster out of a secessionist movement doesn't it? :p
Friendly Neighborhood Fascist™
ФАШИЗМ БЕЗГРАНИЧНЫЙ И КРАСНЫЙ
Caninope wrote:Toyota: Keep moving forward, even when you don't want to!

Christmahanikwanzikah wrote:Timothy McVeigh casts... Pyrotechnics!

Greater Americania wrote:lol "No Comrade Ivan! Don't stick your head in there! That's the wood chi...!"

New Kereptica wrote:Fascism: because people are too smart nowadays.

User avatar
Derscon
Minister
 
Posts: 2994
Founded: Antiquity
Ex-Nation

Postby Derscon » Mon Apr 05, 2010 3:06 pm

So?

Basically, what I'm getting is that "People can have self-determination, unless I don't like their opinions." Cool story bro.

Slavery was the straw that broke the camel's back, yes, and the direct cause of secession. However, it is intensely intellectually dishonest to lay everything on the backs of "They just want to whip them negro folk." Did the states secede because of slavery? Yes. Was the War of Northern Aggression fought because of slavery? Not by a long shot.
NationStates remains an excellent educational tool for children. It can teach you exactly just how far people will go to gain extrajudicially what they could never gain legitimately. ~ Questers
And congratulations to Derscon, who has finally codified the exact basis on which NS issues work. ~ Ardchoille

瞞天過海

User avatar
Yootopia
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8410
Founded: Dec 28, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby Yootopia » Mon Apr 05, 2010 3:06 pm

Maurepas wrote:New Orleans was the most prosperous city, but, it was largely only prosperous for itself, through the port and the various gambling/bars involved, still is to this day really...

That cotton's worth nothing to the CSA if they can't get it out of the country, and New Orleans was about the best port to sell from. That's why they were absolutely shafted after the situation there fell out of the Confederacy's hands.
End the Modigarchy now.

User avatar
Free and Open States
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 153
Founded: Mar 28, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Free and Open States » Mon Apr 05, 2010 3:07 pm

Well, we now know the South would have failed, but it is/should be the right of a state in the union to peacefully succeed. We need and amendment to the Constitution to allow for it.

User avatar
Vervaria
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1803
Founded: Oct 31, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Vervaria » Mon Apr 05, 2010 3:07 pm

Derscon wrote:So?

Basically, what I'm getting is that "People can have self-determination, unless I don't like their opinions." Cool story bro.

Slavery was the straw that broke the camel's back, yes, and the direct cause of secession. However, it is intensely intellectually dishonest to lay everything on the backs of "They just want to whip them negro folk." Did the states secede because of slavery? Yes. Was the War of Northern Aggression fought because of slavery? Not by a long shot.

Funny, I seem to recall reading something about the South firing on Federal property.....
Lulz: viewtopic.php?p=2707685#p2707685
Fact book
Robustian wrote:If you disagree with me, you are wrong. Period.

Ashmoria wrote:it worries me more when people who hate the government and dont think it can do a good job at anything get into power and start running things.

Wanderjar wrote:hiding behind this "I WANT SOURCES" wall is very quaint

Self--Esteem wrote:No. I love smearing those people who evidently like their country blown by a nuke and who are too foolish to realise that middle-eastern terrorism is nothing to be fond of.

Novistranaya wrote:After the Civil War, the majority of Southerners were more than happy to accept defeat and acknowledge the fact that (though not immediately) blacks were going to have the same rights as them.

User avatar
Free and Open States
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 153
Founded: Mar 28, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Free and Open States » Mon Apr 05, 2010 3:07 pm

BTW, I'm from the North.

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Deacarsia, Elmwood, Galloism, Havelom, Incorporatia, Karaden, Karteria, Lower Nubia, Maineiacs, Manquy, MSN [Bot], New Hudazendkia, Totenborg, VoVoDoCo

Advertisement

Remove ads