Discussion in 'Civil War History - General Discussion' started by WhatWouldJacksonDo, Mar 11, 2017.
Okay, your opinion is noted. Thanks.
Happy St. Patrick's Day !!
There is no doubt Brown gets a pass. He gets that pass because of the "Treasury of Virtue" They turn a blind eye to ALL his negative actions, attempt to show him as righteous. There is nothing righteous about John Brown.
In late December of 1858 Brown set out to Missouri on a slave stealing raid.
“Dividing his forces outlaws Brown led one of the groups outlaw groups, his first stop the home of Harvey C. Hicklan. Here at gun point by force, the Brown-led unit outlaws, numbering approximately fifteen, seized stole the 5 blacks. Within the hour, the band was outlaws were on its way to the residence of another slaveowner, John B. Larue, just a mile away. Here they took stole another five blacks. They also gathered kidnapped two whites, Larue and a guest of his, thus preventing them from raising a hue-and-cry for rescue an alarm about the outlaws. The duo would be released within a week.
In the meantime, the second of the two columns outlaw groups, numbering fewer than the Brown-led group outlaw group but also armed and mounted, had gone to the house of David Cruise and taken stole one slave, Jane—the other, George, being absent. Cruise was killed murdered, one of the raiders outlaws firing on him after he made a sudden move which the raider outlaw construed to be a gun-drawn.
In addition to slaves the raiders outlaws had also seized stole horses, oxen, foodstuffs, bedding, and clothing. Inevitably and despite Brown, a few of the men in his band were loot-minded. Brown, too, believed in taking stealing the belongings of slaveholders. But his justification his opinion/belief was not the spoils-of-war theory; rather it was a conviction belief that the masters should bear the costs of transporting their former slaves to freedom, and in a larger sense Brown held Brown believed that whatever his party took stole belonged in reality to the slaves, their labor having produced it.”
Source: Allies for Freedom & Blacks on John Brown, pp.54-55, by Benjamin Quarles.
This shows John Brown as the murderer, robber, kidnapper, law breaker, horse thief, outlaw leader, and later treasonous person that he was. This is what some wish to honor, as a God, as a Saint, while they turn a blind eye to all of Brown’s evils, and wish to praise and worship him, while then being hypocrites and condemning Confederates.
Brown led an attack on the United States Armory and Arsenal at Harpers Ferry, which is an attack on the United States itself, yet it gets the blind eye treatment, while condemning Confederates for the same type action. Brown was even going to set up a new country inside of the United States.
Brown was nothing more than a modern-day terrorist, robber, murderer, horse thief, and kidnapper……. nothing less. Brown’s statues, monuments, memorials, and parks honoring this evil of evils need to be removed. If we are going to “clean” up history, then let’s clean it all up………………
Even Quarles attempted to clean up history on Brown’s actions by using softer sounding words.
Seized = Stole
I struck through some words and inserted what I think are more correct words to use.
Now I know I will receive tons of back lash, all attempting to defend Brown’s actions based on his so called “righteousness”. IIRC even old "able less" Abe said Brown was wrong, though he believed slavery wrong, Brown was wrong in his actions.
You guys and Gals have at it, I have said my piece and shan’t comment on this subject in this thread again. I will place myself in a self imposed "time-out" in this thread............lol.................
If you wish to discuss this with me you can drop me a private message...............Thanks
A terrorist kills non combatant civilians to make a political point. Killing Border Ruffians is bot terrorism its a preemptive strike. Brown did release unharmed captured Border Ruffians.
If your family was enslaved and tour wife and daughter wers amusement toys for Master then being " stolen" and having Master dispatched to the promised land sounds like a good deal.
Yes, there are people who see it as "liberating" slaves, not stealing them. The deferent views on this are partly dependent on if one sees slavery as 'good' or "evil".
3 Northerners had more than a little to do with blowing up the Parties and creating the Republicans. Pierce, Douglass and Buchanan. K/B Act of 54.
Nottheners Voted for the FSL. They favored Compromise over Black Rights.
True. Thus the Emancipation Proclamation and the Civil War were partial atonements.
So the Civil War was fought for the Atonement of Northern White Guilt.
I think more accurately the Revisionist History of the war is to relieve the North of thier White Guilt. Which has been Successful.
I don't think John Brown caused anything per se, but his actions certainly increased tensions. Especially in the South. He was the manifestation of Southern fears, proof of all the bad things said about abolitionists.
It has been brought up that John Brown was charged with treason against Virginia. How does one commit treason against a state? I know of a variety of acts that would be considered treason against the USA, but I don't know what act I could commit that is treason against Florida.
No, as radical as it gets would be intentionally murdering slave owners and their families.
Innocent people can get caught in the crossfire of any war or rebellion.
His plan was inept and probably hopeless and his execution legally justified. But he was willing to kill and die for a cause he really believed in, and a cause which at its core was morally right (ending slavery). He was a righteous fool.
I didn't argue that is the reason the Civil War was fought. You were making a moral argument that Northern whites were complicit in allowing slavery to continue in the South. I was just pointing out that if said argument was true then the EP and Civil War would serve as atonement.
That analogy is wrong in numerous ways. The British could have said the same thing about the Colonies, and more.
That is the kind of argument one would expect from a newcomer who had read nothing but Neely and Jaffa. Confederate records make it clear that CSA leaders did not want war and hoped the North would agree to peaceful separation and even mutual recognition and trade relations. However, as a prudent precaution, given what many Republicans were saying and given that Sumter and Pickens had not been evacuated, they made preparations for war in case the North invaded.
FDR didn't send a naval convoy to a fort that the Japanese claimed was on their territory after his envoy and one of his cabinet members assured the Japanese that the fort would be evacuated.
Any humane, civilized view of events tells us that using a bloodless, provoked attack as an excuse for an invasion is shameful and disgraceful.
Well, when it involves murdering law-abiding citizens, yes. Are you aware that our founding fathers reacted with alarm and condemnation to Lord Dunmore's proclamation offering freedom to American slaves who would fight for the British and that they viewed the provocation of slave insurrections as a violation of the rules of war? Are you aware that the colony of Virginia, with not one peep of protest from the other colonies, issued a warning of severe punishment for slaves who fought for the British.
During the War of 1812, the British again tried to incite slave insurrections, and Secretary of State John Quincy Adams attacked the British claim that emancipating an enemy's slaves was a legitimate right of war. Adams declared,
No such right is acknowledged as a law of war by writers who admit any limitation. (Robert Durden, The Black and the Gray: The Confederate Debate on Emancipation, Louisiana Paperback Edition, Baton Rouge: LSU Press, 2000, reprint of 1972 edition, p. 27)
Indeed, Adams, who was staunchly anti-slavery, compared emancipating an enemy's slaves with executing prisoners of war. In addition, in the discussions relating to the peace treaty of 1814, the U.S. took the position that "the emancipation of an enemy's slaves is not among the acts of legitimate warfare" (Durden, The Black and the Gray, p. 27).
And, it should be noted that Abraham Lincoln strongly condemned John Brown's raid, as did Joshua Chamberlain and Robert Gould Shaw. Were they all wrong?
The analogy is perfect, as any honest person in the discussion who understands the history of the secession crisis will recognize.
As inaccurate as always. Jefferson Davis himself knew there would be a war months ahead of time.
"When Lincoln comes in he will have but to continue in the path of his predecessor to inaugurate a a civil war and, leave a soi disant democratic administration responsible for the fact. Genl. Cushing was here last week and when we parted it seemed like taking a last leave of a Brother. I leave immediately for Missi. and know not what may devolve upon me after my return. Civil war has only horror for me, but whatever circumstances demand shall be met as a duty and I trust be so discharged that you will not be ashamed of our former connection or cease to be my friend." [Jefferson Davis to Franklin Pierce, 20 Jan 1861]
FDR seized Japanese assets in the US and embargoed oil shipments to Japan. Does that mean FDR caused Japan to attack Pearl Harbor?
Falsehood. You're hung up on the accidentally bloodless attack, that was not provoked, by the way, when in fact an attack is an attack. It was not for lack of trying that no US soldiers were killed in the attack. The fact remains the confederates fired the first shots and started the war. The United States then acted to put down the criminal rebellion.
So to you, if a slaver resists with deadly force the freeing of enslaved people then it is not okay to use deadly force to free those enslaved people. The life of the slaver is more important than the freedom of the enslaved people to you.
Our slave-owning founding fathers. That doesn't mean it was right. It is another manifestation of how slavery makes good men do evil things.
Slavery makes good men do evil things.
Perhaps they were.
Makes one wonder how many "smart" cannon were being used by the Confederacy during their bombardment of Ft. Sumter.
It was only by God's good grace no US soldiers were killed by Confederate cannon during the siege of the fort. I am certain no one would believe that the Confederate gunners were told to avoid killing any soldiers during their firing.
Why do you?
Let's say another country launches a cruise missile that hits and destroys the US Capitol at midnight on a Saturday night with Congress out of session. No one is hurt or killed, but the building is destroyed.
Griffith would say, "Oh, it was bloodless. No harm, no foul. Nothing to see here. Move along. No reason to retaliate."
To add a bit of context to your Adams quote (also here):
In the statement of the British ground of argument upon the claim in the submission, they have broadly asserted the right of emancipating slaves - private property - as a legitimate right of war. This is utterly incomprehensible on the part of a nation whose subjects hold slaves by millions, and who, in this very treaty, recognize them as private property. No such right is acknowledged as a law of war by writers who admit any limitation. The right of putting to death all prisoners in cold blood and without special cause, might as well be pretended to be a law of war, or the right to use poisoned weapons, or to assassinate.
This was the argument, but the case was decided in favor of the United States based on the grounds that the peace treaty required the slaves to be returned, regardless of whether Britain would have had the right to free them otherwise. According to the Lieber code:
Slavery, complicating and confounding the ideas of property, (that is of a thing,) and of personality, (that is of humanity,) exists according to municipal or local law only. The law of nature and nations has never acknowledged it. The digest of the Roman law enacts the early dictum of the pagan jurist, that "so far as the law of nature is concerned, all men are equal." Fugitives escaping from a country in which they were slaves, villains, or serfs, into another country, have, for centuries past, been held free and acknowledged free by judicial decisions of European countries, even though the municipal law of the country in which the slave had taken refuge acknowledged slavery within its own dominions.
So Adams' argument should have failed even though Britain was a slave nation. There was support in international law for protection of private property, but not for the notion that people can be property. Indeed, John Adams himself later became a strong opponent of slavery, and thus in effect repudiated the argument he made in the above quote.
JQA specifically said in the event of a civil war the slaves would be freed as a result.
Certain posters don't want us to know that inconvenient fact.
And that analog is similar wrong in numerous ways.
Japan was a sovereign state, recognized as such by every major power in the world, including the USA.
Fort Sumter was not part of South Carolina... by both SC and US law.
And SC was not recognized as a sovereign state by any internationally recognized sovereign state.
FDR could order US soldiers to any US fort on US soil if he wanted to do so... so could Lincoln.
In that case, you have forgotten John C. Calhoun and Jefferson Davis, etc.
Agreed. John Brown was a terrorist, pure and simple. The ends do not justify the means.
But see, this is exactly the black and white viewpoint I was talking about earlier. While I agree that John Brown was a terrorist and murderer (and a fool, to boot), to say that he was "nothing more" than that, "pure and simple", is just as simplistic and one-sided as to say that he was nothing less than a hero and a saint, "pure and simple". He was indeed a murderer and a terrorist and a fool, and what he did was wrong, but he was also willing to sacrifice his life for a noble cause that relatively few Americans of his time were willing to lift a finger for. So there's really nothing "pure and simple" about it.
Separate names with a comma.