Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
Cash wants more names. Anyone who read my post saw several names of other abolitionists listed in the 1859 newspapers. If you did not see them, go back and read the post again. Many people, north and south, saw abolitionists as terrorists. They named names. The people of that era speak for themselves. I accept the validity of the original sources.
One off the reasons I cannot be a monocausalist, in addition to the simplistic nature of the position, is the fashion in which some monocausalists attempt to keep alive the old myth of "Yankee Saints-Rebel Sinners" by limiting the issue of slavery to those who owned slaves (and their immediate families). The issue of slavery includes those who sold them, those who transported them, those who purchased them, those who purchased the products the slaves produced, and those who went outside the law to free them. This narrow view of the slavery issue allows one to adopt a self-righteous view that only the South was responsible for slavery but this myth of the Holy Cause is just as destructive to historical understanding as the myth of the Lost Cause. It creates a historical fundamentalism in which "I am right and worthy, you are wrong and unworthy."
I have cited the words of original sources to support my assertion that abolitionists were terrorists. I have shown that my position was held by people of the time in discussion. No more is necessary on my part. Let those who disagree cite the people of the 19th Century to support their view.
Prof-
It is obvious that you have drawn your conclusion from much diligent research. If you haven't read Dr. Adams' chronicle, I feel that you might benefit from doing so. He paints a slightly different picture from most. He explores various routes for freeing slaves: one route is the war that begins about seven years AFTER the book is written.
I am better able from to glean information from period writers than from modern day writers who have their own bias.
Olreb
Cash wants more names. Anyone who read my post saw several names of other abolitionists listed in the 1859 newspapers.
Let's see, they name "Captain Brown of Kansas noteriety," "Ossawatomie Brown," "Brown and his followers," "Seward and Chase," "Seward, Greeley, and other Republican leaders," "Brown and his confederates," "Seward, Giddings, and other prominent leaders of the Republican party," "Ossawatomie Brown," and "Wm. H. Seward and Abrraham Lincoln."
Looks like John Brown is the only abolitionist named as a terrorist, along with the men who followed him at Harpers Ferry. They talk about speeches by Seward, Chase, Giddings, and other Republican party leaders, the "teachings" of Seward and Lincoln, but don't claim they are terrorists. One talked about Lane and Montgomery in Kansas, but they were reacting to the proslavery violence that had been going on beforehand. Oh, I almost missed "A large number of Sharpes rifles were found with the conspirators, no doubt sent on by the Massachusetts Emigrant Aid Society and the Beechers and Sillmans of New England." This charges Beecher and Sillman with providing weapons, but doesn't prove anything, nor does it claim Beecher and Sillman engaged in violence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RebProf
If you did not see them, go back and read the post again. Many people, north and south, saw abolitionists as terrorists. They named names. The people of that era speak for themselves. I accept the validity of the original sources.
The problem you have is that Brown and the people who followed him at Harpers Ferry are the only ones listed who are charged with engaging in what could be considered terrorist activities. Taking Lane and Montgomery out of context is poor history. You have to use them in the context of their times, and in the context of their times their activities were reactions to proslavery violence.
The other problem you have is that you are the one who claimed the abolitionists turned to terrorism and lawlessness. So far you have not been able to substantiate anyone other than Brown and the men who were with him. Using your tactics I can tar every postwar confederate with being a KKK member if I can find a single former confederate soldier in the KKK.
This narrow view of the slavery issue allows one to adopt a self-righteous view that only the South was responsible for slavery
That's preposterous. Nobody has ever denied that Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Jersey, and Delaware all had slaves at some point in their history. The difference, of course, is that with the exception of Delaware they all got rid of slavery voluntarily, on their own, without seceding and fighting a war to preserve slavery. Even Delaware acquiesced and accepted the end of slavery when the 13th Amendment was ratified. Even Maryland and Missouri saw the handwriting on the wall and abolished slavery before the end of the war.
Thanks. I have wondered about that for years. But now I see clearly. Osama is not a terrorist! He only provided guns and guidance. I can see clearly now. Only the trigger man is a terrorist. The planners, the financial supporters, the propagandists, are NOT terrorists. My day has not been wasted; I have learned something. FREE OSAMA!
Thanks. I have wondered about that for years. But now I see clearly. Osama is not a terrorist! He only provided guns and guidance. I can see clearly now. Only the trigger man is a terrorist. The planners, the financial supporters, the propagandists, are NOT terrorists. My day has not been wasted; I have learned something. FREE OSAMA!
Please show where any of the named individuals actively participated in the planning for Harpers Ferry.
And please show where the speculation of a partisan newspaper without any evidence is in any way proof of support for terrorism.
During an obviously 'ill tempered' and trying time as
was pre-1860 in the US, abolitionists didn't bring pure peace & harmony through their writings and various circulations regarding slavery. The abolitionists only made things worse. Andrew Jackson saw this trend and tried to gain moderation to it's practice via a letter to Congress; and Jackson didn't receive a reply back. Abolitionists brought out even worse tempers via their non-violent pens. The abolitionist ideal was to abolish slavery in the US AT ANY cost. Abolitionists wanted slavery ended Immediately and only placed pressure on a volatile problem. At least John Brown was loud & clear with his action, as opposed to Garrison, for example. As a Southerner, I have MUCH more respect for John Brown in this regard.
I agree totally with RebProf re: newspaper's being partisan. Even today the term "mostly conservative" brand X News or the "moderate based" brand Z News, is utilized to describe their "view."etc. And I also agree with Gen. W.T. Sherman's view & disdain re: Newspaper's & reporters; paraphrasing Sherman liberally: 'If I shot every newpaperman this evening, news would come forth from hell before sunrise tomorrow morning!' I'll add to Sherman's view: 'news would come from hell before sunrise wih a biased view toward the devil himself!' Hence, newspapers were partisan in 1860 and they continue to be today. People actually believed & believe what these rags have to say as fact. Newspapers & news writers do not ALWAYS print facts, but often ONLY their biased opinion or the biased opinion of others. Partisan newspapers had their share of starting the WBTS. Abolitionist's had their part, also, and they did incite violence with their words of hatred.
During an obviously 'ill tempered' and trying time as
was pre-1860 in the US, abolitionists didn't bring pure peace & harmony through their writings and various circulations regarding slavery.
Nothing about that is against the law and nothing about that is terrorism. The assertion was that they turned to terrorism and lawlessness.
alabaman has an excellent point: the newspapers of the times were usually tied to political parties and reflected their point of view. If the abolitionist press "did incite violence" however, secessionist papers did their part to keep the pot boiling.
Reb prof has a point too: John Brown's raid had a polarizing effect on Southern public opinion. His leap to: abolitionists are all terrorists and caused the Civil War, is a bit of a overreach, which our brother and sister posters were kind enough to gently indicate. Such solictious fellows!
If the word "terrorist" is to retain any meaning at all, let's define it:
a non governmental individual or group who commits violent, usually deadly acts, to create an atmosphere of terror in society, and provoke a response.
By this defintion Brown is a terrorist because that what his acts did, especially in Kansas: violence as theater. At Harper's Ferry, he had a coherent, if far fetched plan to raise a guerilla force of ex slaves to disrupt slavery. He turned the raid into an act of pure terror, when this plan failed.
The vast majority of white abolitionists would have been contented with some plan with the abolition of slavery at the end of the road, either the gradual or compensated plans used in several Northern states.
It's hard for me to get steamed at abolitionists who criticized slavery. After all slavery was an horrible thing and the First Amendment guarentees freedom of the press.
There is one other killing you can attribute to abolitionists who are not John Brown. Can anyone think of it?
Yes, sir you have a technical point in the majority of abolitionist not 'physically' doing bodily harm to anybody; other than maybe John Brown & company. Given the wording of some of their rhetoric utilized and the morality issue brought forth, the abolitionist's pen was mightier than the sword, perhaps. In a more contemporary sense, this is like newspaper's inciting whites against Japanese-Americans just after Pearl Harbor was bombed. The newspapers didn't do the physical internmemt of the Japanese-Americans but caused public & governmental sentiment to cause this reaction.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
RebProf 
Linear Mode
