CivilWarTalk.com - A free and friendly Civil War community.
CivilWarTalk.com
The Dispatch Depot at Civil War Talk  

Go Back   The Dispatch Depot at Civil War Talk > The Backpack - Essential Discussions > Civil War History - Secession and Politics

Civil War History - Secession and Politics Was 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.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 07-18-2005, 12:55 AM
ole's Avatar
ole ole is offline
Brig. General, Mod
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 7,656
Default

Re: John Brown's trial in Virginia.

The laws forbid trying a civilian in military court when there is an operating civil court in that jurisdiction. It would seem that, although the crime was primarily against a federal facility, the state had jurisdiction. Why a state court instead of a federal court might best be answered by our resident legal scholars.
Ole
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-07-2005, 01:44 AM
Admiral_Porter's Avatar
Corporal (250+ posts)
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 381
Default

How does someone commit treason against a state? Brown was not a citizen of Virginia.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11-07-2005, 11:23 AM
MobileBoy's Avatar
Corporal (250+ posts)
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Mobile,Al
Posts: 397
Default

Shane,
How about an analogy between John Brown and the Union soldiers.They both came into Virginia unwelcome with the purpose of killing Southeners. That would seem to me to make a much better comparison than John Brown with Southeners.
Ashley
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 11-07-2005, 03:54 PM
First Sergeant (1000+ posts)
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,463
Default

Shane,
I think its important to realize that Brown was not a "nutjob." His actions were mostly rational. They were in fact terrorist actions.

If I understand other posters correctly, the Southern view is that the first shot of the Civil war was at Harper's Ferry, therefore, the
Yankees are the aggressors, and Ft. Sumter the "2nd" fight so to speak, while the Northern view is that Brown was a revolutionary and was appropriately punished, so the South should have no complaints about getting suppressed and punished for their rebellion?

So either Brown is either Lincoln or Lee?
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 11-07-2005, 06:38 PM
First Sergeant (1000+ posts)
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,463
Default

Here's a way to think of it.

If a slave runs away, who among us now(2005) would not cheer him on and think, from his point of view he's doing the right thing, and good luck, I hope he makes it!

If he is pursued, is seized by a slave catcher, knocks the slave catcher down and escapes, its still good.

If the slave catcher holds a gun on him, they wrestle, the runaway grabs the gun and shoots the slave catcher and escapes, still OK?

The runaway steals or obtains a gun before he escapes with the purpose of defending himself against anyone who tries to stop him.

A abolitionist assists the runaway by giving him a gun to defend himself while escaping.

The abolitionist and the runaway, and the runaway's friends arm themselves in the free states, and go south with the purpose of freeing their friends and family, with the threat and reality of deadly violence.

I believe this is the chain of reasoning of Brown and his allies. Given the premise that slavery is an absolute evil, and therefore resistance is a moral action.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 11-07-2005, 07:04 PM
Sergeant Major (1750+ posts)
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,395
Default

There's a new book out by David S. Reynolds called John Brown, Abolitionist: The Man Who Killed Slavery, Sparked the Civil War, and Seeded Civil Rights. This is an outstanding book that puts Brown and his actions into perspective. In Kansas, Brown struck terror into the hearts of the proslavery faction because he adopted their tactics. The men he killed were not slaveowners, but they were proslavery settlers who were active against free soilers. Prof. Reynolds makes the strong case that Brown was not insane, and he also goes into the charges against him and the question raised at the time of how a man who was not a citizen of Virginia could be convicted of treason against Virginia.

Regards,
Cash
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 11-07-2005, 07:20 PM
johan_steele's Avatar
Brig. General, Mod
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: South of the North 40
Posts: 4,074
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
Shane,
How about an analogy between John Brown and the Union soldiers.They both came into Virginia unwelcome with the purpose of killing Southeners. That would seem to me to make a much better comparison than John Brown with Southeners.
Ashley
I'm not certain that is a valid analogy. Union troops never seized an arsenal w/ the intent to arm a slave rebellion and muder anyone who got in their way. John Browns action was criminal, it was treason against the US.

Matthew, I don't understand the reasoning behind the idea that John Brown and Harpers Feery were the opening salvo of the Civil War... Mainly because the Federal Govt dealt w/ it; not the future states of the CS.

I'm going to have to do some more reading on the subject, I thank both of you for making me have to read some more!
__________________
Few take the trouble to understand or to view the American scene with perspective. And we Americans love to find ourselves guilty of something. However, it is never I who am guilty, but those other Americans, the past or present government or the other political party. Americans almost never find other countries guilty. It is always ourselves or our fancied influence in other countries. Louis L'amour
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 11-08-2005, 12:40 PM
rivrrat's Avatar
Sergeant (500+ posts)
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 537
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cash
There's a new book out by David S. Reynolds called John Brown, Abolitionist: The Man Who Killed Slavery, Sparked the Civil War, and Seeded Civil Rights. This is an outstanding book that puts Brown and his actions into perspective. In Kansas, Brown struck terror into the hearts of the proslavery faction because he adopted their tactics. The men he killed were not slaveowners, but they were proslavery settlers who were active against free soilers. Prof. Reynolds makes the strong case that Brown was not insane, and he also goes into the charges against him and the question raised at the time of how a man who was not a citizen of Virginia could be convicted of treason against Virginia.

Regards,
Cash
Cash, I will have to get ahold of this book. It sounds interesting. I won't say anything about the book itself until I read it.

I can say, as a Kansas resident, and member of the Topeka Civil War Round Table, that most of the people I talk to in Kansas consider Brown a nut case. This was not true during the war.
__________________
Doug
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 11-09-2005, 09:17 AM
Sergeant (500+ posts)
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 572
Default

Wouldn't you pro-unionist think John Brown took an unlawful calculated risk and lost?
...and.....
The Southern Confederacy first seceeded/declared independence in a legal manner (interpreted by the US Gov't per the Constitution as unlawful), then were provoked into firing the fist shot? IMO, the 'other' 1/2 of this country, the 'South,' thought their desires were just as valid as the north's desires regarding the union of the States.

Re: Treason against a state:??
Either this is proof of true southern belief in States Rights or the Federal Gov'ts (possible?) manipulation through inaction, in allowing a Federal crime to be prosecuted as a State offense? Only a little while later, this inaction wasn't AT ALL apparent in Federal authorities. As a pro-south member, do I have a point?

Regards,
Rob Adams

Last edited by Alabaman; 11-09-2005 at 09:20 AM.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 11-09-2005, 11:27 AM
First Sergeant (1000+ posts)
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,463
Default

Shane,
I don't think that Harper's Ferry was the opening shot of the war either.

A question: was there a law in Virginia saying you could commit treason against a state? I've heard that, but had never really thought about it.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:18 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0
Back to top
Bringing the American Civil War to Life. Copyright © 1999 - 2008, CivilWarTalk.com. Site Version 4.3
The American Civil War | Forum | Resource Center | Image Gallery | Links | Site Map | XML | Donations