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.
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
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
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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?