John Brown: A Terrorist who Deserved Hanging
This is the 150th anniversary of the hanging of John Brown. When he attacked Harper’s Ferry with a handful of followers, the butcher of Kansas helped sow the seeds of the Civil War. Few things would have made Brown happier than the thought of hundreds of thousands of people dying for his own Scorched Earth method of moral salvation.
The New York Times op-ed page has a piece today touting Brown as an American hero. It seeks to vindicate him:
He was held in high esteem by many great men of his day. Ralph Waldo Emerson compared him to Jesus, declaring that Brown would “make the gallows as glorious as the cross.†Henry David Thoreau placed Brown above the freedom fighters of the American Revolution.
The fact that Emerson and Thoreau turned into cheerleaders for John Brown was among the worst failings for each of them. Both Emerson and Thoreau started out denouncing politics as a snare and a fraud. And both fell for Brown and his vision of progress via slaughtering innocent people.
Brown’s attempt to create a bloody uprising in Virginia helped close the final door to compromise between the North and the South. His name should be as odious today as those of other people whose violence sparked mass killing.
++++
Update 12/03: There have been some excellent revisionist histories in the last 20 years on how the Civil War could have been averted and how slavery would have been phased out without a national bloodbath. While some of the deep South states saw slavery as their essence, upper South states like Virginia were not so mindlessly attached to the odious institution.
Those who believe that a war was necessary to end slavery often fail to realize that much of the dire plight of freed slaves was the result of northern armies relying on Scorched Earth tactics in the final year of the war. When almost everything has been destroyed, it is difficult for anyone (except Carpetbaggers) to survive.
[Comments also welcome at my blog here]
Johnny in Wi.
December 3rd, 2009 at 3:09 am
John Brown's body is a moldering in the grave. Bovard you have it right. At one time I thought he was a hero myself. He was just another crazed butcher.
Jay Barr
December 3rd, 2009 at 3:13 am
I disagree. Self-defense, when there is no other option, is not terrorism. You believe that there were other options, he apparently did not. You might also consider Nat Turner a terrorist who deserved hanging and distribution of his body parts as souvenirs to those present. While John Brown's actions may fit a literal definition of terrorism (although that definition is being stretched all the time ie Ft. Hood incident) so too could the actions of virtually every compliant complicit citizen of the United States during that same time period for their role in the institution of slavery, which in so many areas (like South Carolina) depended on terror to preserve white domination over large Black populations. There is too long a list of American terrorists to condemn for anyone to ever get down far enough on that list to celebrate the death of John Brown.
Maxine
December 3rd, 2009 at 3:38 am
Slavery, Jim Crow, KKK: American domestic terrorism.
CIA in Central/South America and Iran, Invasion of Phillipines, Bhopal chemical massacre: American International Terrorism.
And just what compromise should there have been to the morally reprehensible practice of slavery?
Kyle
December 3rd, 2009 at 3:44 am
Let's not bullshit ourselves, the founders of this country could easily be defined as terrorists. Ask King George if you don't believe me.
jfb
December 3rd, 2009 at 4:16 am
What's this trash?
Anonymous
December 3rd, 2009 at 4:20 am
How about the compromise of buying up the slaves and setting them free? Their owners would be compensated under the old system, thereby making way for the new way of doing things. Therefore no group would harbor ill feelings at the end of the process.
Anonymous2
December 3rd, 2009 at 5:21 am
Not a chance in hell of that actually happening. After the Dred Scott decision, in which the Supreme Court established 7-2 that blacks were not citizens, the South had no reason to make compromises like this. War was the only way of ending slavery.
Also, Brown's uprising was intended as largely defensive. The idea was that blacks could run to his army in the mountains, which would be big and well-armed enough to fend off slavers. He did not intend or engage in the indiscriminate murder of plantation owners, which would have been arguably justified anyway.
Richard Estes
December 3rd, 2009 at 6:42 am
I intend to sign the petition requesting that John Brown be pardoned. He was on the right side of history, and the violence that resulted as a consequence of his actions falls squarely on the side of the people who insisted upon seizing Africans and possessing them in this country as slaves. The notion of compensating them for such an atrocity is absurd, and would never have been accepted, anyway. it is also important to note that slaveholders were among the most imperialist class in the country at the time, seeking to expand into Cuba and Central America in order to preserve the "peculiar institution".
anti_republocrat
December 3rd, 2009 at 7:52 am
Yes. The Dred Scott decision combined with enforcement of the fugitive slave law in the North and "popular sovereignty" in the territories essentially legalized slavery in the entire United States. Lincoln was correct in his "house divided" speech. Most Northerners and Westerners were genuinely fearful of slavery's expansion to their own states, so many applauded Brown's direct action and most voted for Lincoln.
An attack on a military installation or soldiers may legitimately be called treason, but it is not terrorism. Terrorism is a deliberate attack on defenseless civilians to achieve your political objective. The London Blitz, Dresden fire-bombings and the dropping of A-bombs on Japan were acts of terrorism. An attack on an arsenal or shooting military personnel on an army base are treason when committed by a citizen of the country being attacked, but they are not terrorism.
Union
December 3rd, 2009 at 11:36 am
John Brown was a terrorist and Lincoln savaged the constitution, god bless them both.
Chuck
December 3rd, 2009 at 12:17 pm
Makes me laugh when Yankees assume a smug tone over slavery. The Yankees were the slavetraders; Providence and Newport Rhode Island ,and Salem, Mass. were among the largest slaving ports. Slavery built the entire New World, not just our part of it. To single out Southerners as uniquely evil and guilty is ridiculous, though it makes latter-day Puritans feel good about themselves. Slavery was a great sin that should have been and could have been (and was) abolished peacefully everywhere but the U.S. and Haiti. Idiots like John Brown and their opposite numbers in the South made this impossible by their reckless, criminal acts.
ron
December 3rd, 2009 at 12:52 pm
BS. The only compromise the South was interested in was one where slavery would continue to exist. That would not have been a compromise–it would have been the surrender of those who believe that slavery is fundamentally evil.
ron
December 3rd, 2009 at 12:54 pm
the problem with libertarianism is present right here in Bravard's little essay. Nowhere does he decry slavery. I assume he figures its the right of free individuals. Oh yeah, what about the individuals enslaved?
Peter Abbott
December 3rd, 2009 at 5:19 am
That only makes sense if you also outlaw slavery in the process. Otherwise, the slaveowners will just buy (or, more likely, kidnap) new slaves. Let's also not forget that the slave codes in force before the Civil War were reincarnated afterward in the new penal codes that reinstated de facto "slavery by another name" (see book of that title by Douglas A. Blackmon).
infojunkie
December 3rd, 2009 at 2:13 pm
Almost makes you think this is satire.
Lear K
December 3rd, 2009 at 6:28 am
A terrorist is one that the US government says is!
liberalamerican
December 3rd, 2009 at 2:33 pm
Why should non-slaveowners have paid slaveowners?
The amount of compensation would be an enormous theft from non-slaveholders.
Furthermore, what about compensation from the slaveowners to the slaves, who were robbed of the value of the labor (not to mention their liberty)?
Slave owners weren't entitled to any compensation. They were entitled to a choice: free your slaves or be destroyed.
liberalamerican
December 3rd, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Right. Without "idiot" antislavers like John Brown and others, the South would have been convinced to give up slavery. LOL!
liberalamerican
December 3rd, 2009 at 2:37 pm
Most "libertarianism" is in fact liberty-despising crypto-feudalism. Google for "royal libertarian" to see why.
Johnny Yuma
December 3rd, 2009 at 2:57 pm
Nonsense. As usual, Emerson and Thoreau were correct. John Brown is an American hero and his actions should not be conflated with Lincoln's War. One was trying to end slavery, the other was trying to increase the strength and scope of the US Federal Government. Additionally, while Emerson et al. were praising John Brown, Lincoln disparaged him. That alone is proof of John Brown's heroism.
minemule
December 3rd, 2009 at 3:33 pm
According to notes and diaries written by British adventerer, Mungo Park, 2/3rds of the black population in Sub-Sahara Africa during the late 1700s lived as slaves to the other 1/3rd of the population. As a result, when New England slave traders (who constituted 99% of American slave traders) sailed to Africa they found the slave pens full of slaves who had been brought there and sold by their own countrymen. And what did the African cheiftians get in exchange for their slaves? They primarily got New England made rum, long rifles from Pennysylvania, and cotton fabric produced in the sweat shops of New York City. Yankee slave traders and other Northern merchants reaped immense profits from the slave trade, while the South got none of the profits and ended up losing the slaves they had paid top dollor to obtain. Does any of this justify slavery? Not in the least, but it does help point out the ignorance, hypocricy, and perfidity that most Yankees possess.
Ron
December 3rd, 2009 at 4:01 pm
I guarantee 100% that the writer of this article is white.
No need to even check
As far as terrorism, would you call the slave owner who beats or executes a slave in front of the other slaves to keep them in line a terrorist? Or do you use the more traditional american version of terrorism, which is that terrorism is any attack of brown on white
Johnny Yuma
December 3rd, 2009 at 4:15 pm
First, I think you mean hypocrisy and perfidy not hypocricy and perfidity. Second, your accusation of ignorance, hypocrisy, and perfidy (though I have no idea why perfidy applies) is only valid if you accept the doctrine of collective responsibility, and that all Yankees are/were in league and complicit with New England slave traders.
December 3, 2009 « Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes?
December 3rd, 2009 at 8:23 am
[...] The fact that Emerson and Thoreau turned into cheerleaders for John Brown was among the worst failings for each of them. Both Emerson and Thoreau started out denouncing politics as a snare and a fraud. And both fell for Brown and his vision of progress via slaughtering innocent people.” http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2009/12/02/john-brown-a-terrorist-who-deserved-hanging/ [...]
Hankest
December 3rd, 2009 at 4:40 pm
I guess when Jefferson Davis – a pro-slavery traitor who presided over a nation that wished to continue an institution of legal ownership, rape and torture of fellow Americans – can have a highway right outside our capital named after him, I can’t get too upset about pardoning a man, no matter how fanatical, who fought to end that institution.
capatriot
December 3rd, 2009 at 5:17 pm
Can't disagree more with the author, I personally don't favor violent resistance, as it hurts innocent bystanders. However, we're talking about a time when millions of human beings were being held as property in this nation. The events occuring in Kansas prior to Virginia show that pro-slavery forces were on a rampage and were not in the mood towards peacefully passing from the pages of history any time soon.
If one believed in slavery being a great evil (as who wouldn't these days), then armed resistance would be the logical and appropriate answer when all peaceful means had been shown not to work. And Brown's resistance was the epitome of libertarian thinking: he didn't use state means, just his own and other volunteers blood and treasure! A hero indeed, as Thoreau said, though a flawed one.
capatriot
December 3rd, 2009 at 5:20 pm
Yes, africans had slaves also. What in the world does this have to do with anything in the article?
South got none of the profits, eh? They just got free labor for up to 200 years, the source for all those lovely antebellum mansions in SC, VA, AL, and MS.
capatriot
December 3rd, 2009 at 5:29 pm
I'm californian, not a southerner; but Jackson and Lee were great soldiers and honorable men.
The civil war wasn't fought over slavery or extension of slavery. It was fought because southern states decided to voluntarily leave the union (secede) and Lincoln did not let them. It was Lincoln's choice and Lincoln's war.
minemule
December 3rd, 2009 at 6:36 pm
Ron,
It depends on what crime(s) the slave had done to warrant punishment or execution. I can assure you that a slave owner who had paid large sums for a slave would not execute him or administer excessive punishment unless there was good reason for doing so. To do otherwise would violate the laws of economics, and most slave and plantation owners were astute business men and women. In case you failed to notice, various laws relating to punishment for crimes, including capital punishment are still in force, although the State now administers the punishment rather than the slave owner, who,accomplished the same goal at no cost to the taxpayer. So what is your position on the administration of justice? Are you now going to condemn the State for administering punishment to criminals who deserve it,? Or had you rather remain a critic of an institution you know very little about.
Robert H. Consoli
December 3rd, 2009 at 6:55 pm
Nice causal reduction. Why don't you read a book? Any book – but a good start is Historians' Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought by David Hackett Fischer. Jackson and Lee were neither good nor honorable. They specialized in murdering your compatriots. It they'd had their way your California would be a slave state today … but you'd prefer that by the sound of it.
bill kelsey
December 3rd, 2009 at 7:43 pm
The Cayman Islands abolished slavery with a church service and a picnic afterwards. The assumption that a war was needed to abolish it in the US is a sign of the internalized addiction to war of so many Americans.
capatriot
December 3rd, 2009 at 7:49 pm
Did the Caymans have mobs of pro-slavery militia walking around the countryside and lynching abilitionists (a la Kansa 1856)?
capatriot
December 3rd, 2009 at 7:53 pm
I have actually read a couple.
Lee and Jackson were soldiers, Mr. Consoli, sworn to follow civilian orders, the way good soldiers should, and they were among the best. They had no say on whether or not California (which had been a free state as of '49) should be either slave or free.
Richard Estes
December 3rd, 2009 at 8:33 pm
For those who insist upon citing "Yankee" hypocrisy to justify the peculiar instituion, it is important to understand that slavery in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries was an INTERNATIONAL enterprise, one in which Africans, Europeans and white American settlers, both North and South, all profited to varying degrees. Indeed, there are many economists who believe that the outsized profits from slavery financed industrial capitalism in the US and the UK. None of which, of course, exonerates the enthusiastic embrace of slavery by southerners, with all its attendant brutalties, such as the taking of women into concubinage by slave owners (like Jefferson), selling women based upon their purported breeding attributes, breaking up families by separating husbands, wives and children, and otherwise working them to exhaustion while subjecting them to the most sadistic forms of violence. As for John Brown, he was an inspirational figure, flaws and all.
Johnny Yuma
December 3rd, 2009 at 9:24 pm
At first I thought your post had to be a joke, I mean, you made the point that slavery is desirable because it saves taxpayers money, and like, how can that be read as anything but laughable??? But, then I realized you were using satire to make an excellent point: The authority of the State is just as illegitimate as the authority of a slave owner. Well played, sir.
I would just add that the administration of punishment and the administration of justice are not the same thing. For instance, when a slave failed in the attempt to affirm his or her personal liberty, by escape or uprising, he or she would be severely punished. Was the slave owner administering justice? Only if you believe that slavery is just. However, slavery is most certainly unjust.
Therefore, when a slave owner unjustly punished a slave for trying to be free, he was merely administering punishment. On the other hand, when John Brown raided Harpers Ferry, he was heroically administering justice.
Johnny Yuma
December 3rd, 2009 at 9:30 pm
To clarify, my above reply was to minemule, not Ron
Chris Mallory
December 3rd, 2009 at 10:20 pm
I would guess all of those posters who support Brown, also support pardons for the nuts who kill abortion doctors. Brown was a murderer plain and simple. He got off easy with a quick hanging.
Valerianus
December 3rd, 2009 at 10:47 pm
Launching a rebellion to slaughter thousands of people is not self-defense. Nothing that was done to Black slaves warranted what John Brown proposed to do. And as for lists of terrorists, the one who aims to kill you is the most important one to you.
Valerianus
December 3rd, 2009 at 10:52 pm
John Brown was merely the last, most radical example of the Yankee idiocy that caused Southerners to dig in and resist any change. Brown's hanging was one the great acts of genuine justice in U.S. history.
Johnny Yuma
December 3rd, 2009 at 10:54 pm
Mr. Bovard,
Regarding your update, certainly the war could have been avoided and slavery phased out without mass bloodshed. And, you are correct about Scorched Earth creating dire conditions in the South. Reconstruction made those bad conditions worse.
The best possible outcome, in terms of liberty and peace, would have been to have the South peacefully exercise their liberty to secede and then phase out slavery on their own, as they undoubtedly would have.
That said, I don't see what the Civil War, Scorched Earth, or Reconstruction has to do with John Brown. Unless one claims that, but for Harpers Ferry, the South would not have seceded, I don't see how John Brown can be held to blame for Lincoln denying Southerners the right to dissolve the political bands which had connected them and to establish a new government that drew it's power from their consent.
John Brown bravely fought against a gross injustice, period, the end. He ought to be eternally applauded for his commitment to human liberty. The fact that Lincoln later committed another gross injustice is irrelevant.
Valerianus
December 3rd, 2009 at 10:57 pm
What about them? All in all, their lot in life wasn't nearly as horrible as people nowadays like to think it was. Did it ever occur to you that one reason Blacks have historically been so enamored of the welfare state is that they remember what it was like to have their basic needs in life provided for them. They certainly didn't starve or freeze to death under slavery, and they received, on the whole, excellent medical care.
Valerianus
December 3rd, 2009 at 11:00 pm
And what exactions were the Yankee slave traders subjected to in payment for their sins?
Valerianus
December 3rd, 2009 at 11:03 pm
Well, now that you have your totalitarian surveillance state, Mr. Descendant of Italian Immigrant Trash, you can have a try at correcting what kind of country we have.
Valerianus
December 3rd, 2009 at 11:05 pm
No, John Brown was a terrorist and a traitor, duly convicted and hanged. Good riddance to Bible-thumping Yankee trash!
Valerianus
December 3rd, 2009 at 11:07 pm
Ha! Wrong cause for them to support! Essentially, the supporters of John Brown are sexually aroused by the thought of murdering Southerners.
Johnny Yuma
December 3rd, 2009 at 11:09 pm
Only if those posters equate slave owners with abortion doctors.
Since we're playing this game, I've got one, too: Would a man deserve to hang if he discovered, within his community, a brutal child sex-slave operation and he went in guns blazing to set the children free because the authorities refused to do anything about it? Would that make him a murderer, plain and simple?
Johnny Yuma
December 3rd, 2009 at 11:13 pm
So, if John Brown had killed a few of them too, then he'd be alright? I guess what you're saying then is, that he didn't do enough. Maybe if he hadn't been hanged, he'd have gotten around to it!
anti_republocrat
December 4th, 2009 at 12:31 am
Consoli is only partially correct. The root cause of the Civil War was the attempt by various individuals and groups to extend slavery. But it wasn't just extension to the territories. The Dred Scott decision coupled with enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Law made it effectively impossible to outlaw slavery anywhere in the U.S. As a result of anger thus engendered in the free state population, the North and West with their superior Electoral College votes were finally able to overcome their disadvantage in the Senate by electing Lincoln.
It is often said that the cause of the Civil War was tariffs, or states' rights, or Lincoln's refusal to allow the South to secede, anything but slavery. Such is the power of denial. But these were not the root cause, only justification. The Civil War positively would not have occurred without a house divided and BOTH halves trying to gain advantage over the other. Even if he had wanted to let the South go, Lincoln would have had to insist that it pay for its share of the national debt, but the South was not willing to negotiate, instead attacking Federal installations and garrisons such as Sumter. It was also the South that first invaded Kentucky, forcing that state to choose sides and invite Federal troops in to protect it.
Richard Estes
December 4th, 2009 at 1:06 am
curious that the violence of John Brown, nearly inconsequential compared to the violence of the slave trade and the treatment of slaves by southerners over the years, is more appalling to you and others that condemn him so strongly
wonder why that is?
Robert H. Consoli
December 3rd, 2009 at 5:13 pm
Disgusting southerner. As usual – lying about the Civil War. My favorite quote from Shane is the villain, played by Jack Palance, when confronted by a southerner: "I'm saying that Stonewall Jackson was trash himself. Him and Lee and all the rest of them rebs. You, too."
To lie about the origins of the Civil War is to lie about the United States of America and what kind of country it really is. For your information ass-wipe the Civil War wasn't fought over slavery. It was fought over the EXTENSION of slavery to the territories.
Happy to help.
Greg
December 4th, 2009 at 1:17 am
Bovard is the same guy who said
"Israeli aggression…Palestinian aggression…they're both equally to blame. What they need is market principle. That'll smooth everything over."
…or words to that effect.
What a dolt.
Greg
December 4th, 2009 at 1:26 am
I brought this up on Scott Horton's "Stress Blog" over a year ago. The EXACT same sentiment.
The chased me into the windmill with pitchforks and torches.
Greg
December 4th, 2009 at 1:27 am
In fact, it was the term "sceptre-humping crypto-Monarchists" that set them off.
minemule
December 3rd, 2009 at 6:14 pm
American Negro slavery is a good example of a historical event being judged in the light of present day standards and morals rather than by the standards and morals that were in place during the time of its existence. All self righteous haters of the South would do well to remember that human slavery has existed for as long as the human race has existed. And that virtually every race has paricipated in slavery and some continue to participate in it. History shows that on the continent of Africa a far greater number of black slaves have been held (and still being held) in slavery by members of their own race than by any other race in any other country at any other time .
Johnny Yuma
December 4th, 2009 at 3:43 am
I have always laughed at the historical-moral-relativism defense of slavery. "Like, the slave owners couldn't help themselves, they weren't as intelligent and enlightened as we are today." Here's the problem, many people in antebellum America, including prominent Southerners (Thomas Jefferson and George Mason to name a couple), did know that slavery was wrong. So, by all means, judge slave owners by the standards and morals of their own day instead. By those standards, they're still disgusting.
Or, how about this? Let's say that slavery was, in fact, not wrong by the standards and morals of antebellum America. Agreed? Fine, then John Brown, being truly enlightened and possessing moral standards of human liberty and dignity, which were beyond his time, was amazingly able to see that slavery is repulsive. Nice, that elevates him even higher above the troglodytes that he killed.
protip: appeals to tradition fail.
abolishgovt
December 4th, 2009 at 3:58 am
John Brown was fighting against an immoral, unjust and extremely inhumane institution – slavery. While the more pacifist abolitionists such as Garrison used methods that were morally just, Brown is also to be commended for standing up for what is right.
He was not Lincoln. He was not the North. He was not the South. He was not a general. War is hell and the health of the State – and the Civil War was no different but blame the people who caused the damage or actually increased the controls of government . Don't blame someone you define as a "terrorist" who was only trying to free all those in chains!
If you want to hang someone – hang the slaveowners, hang the politicans, hang the generals – but leave the abolitionists alone. They were on the right side of history – the fought against great personal odds, threats and hatred to point out the wrongs – they were on the side of freedom and liberty for ALL!
abolishgovt
December 4th, 2009 at 4:28 am
Abolitionists knew it was morally wrong back then. Abolitionists know it is morally wrong right now.
Slavery is not a justifed institution at anytime or anyplace against anyone!
minemule
December 4th, 2009 at 5:12 am
So when are you and johnny yuma going on your murderous rampage across black Africa to eradicate the evil of slavery from the only region of the world where it is still widely practiced today? The possibilities are unlimited and you already have the perfect role model in your hero John Brown. Just think of the instant fame and eternal adoration that would be heaped upon you by the zealots and fanatics who think like you do.
shubel hawkins
December 4th, 2009 at 5:34 am
I fervently disagree with Mr. Bovine. John Brown was a hero of the first order. He may have had five thug-terrorist-assistants killed in Kansas but for the most part he was amazingly kind to the pro-slavery filth that he dealt with. At Harpers Ferry he was too kind and if he is to be criticized, it is for being too kind. That's why he got stuck in HF. If he had been a bit more militaristic, he would have gotten away from the pro-slavery forces and into the mountains and turned the south upside down.
Johnny Yuma
December 4th, 2009 at 6:30 am
We're leaving as soon as you get back from your trip fishing for red herring. Someone's gotta watch the shop!
Jay Barr
December 4th, 2009 at 12:50 am
What would warrant it? I can't think of anything worse than what was done to Africans enslaved in the U.S.
Shootist66
December 4th, 2009 at 11:19 am
I'm amazed that so many people still think that the Civil (sic) War was fought over slavery and that Lincoln was such a great hero.. Products of our vaunted public education system, I guess. The Confederate States fought for the right of secession (Perfectly legal. After all, entry into the union was voluntary.) The Unionist aggression was for the purpose of retaining control of the agrarian South. The Emancipation Proclamation was nothing but a late-in-the-war Lincolnian propaganda gimmick which had no force of law because the Confederacy was not part of the Union at that time, and moreover did not apply to the Northern slave states. Just a load of Lincolnesque double-talk. And BTW, I'm not from the South. .
xiis
December 4th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
Valerianus,
Would u like to volunteer yourself or your children to be slaves? Mind u they will be well taken care of.
xiis
December 4th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
havent u heard of all white slavery going on in the midwest especially among trailer trash whites and bikers?
xiis
December 4th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
if only more blacks fought as bravely for their freedom as john brown and nat turner.
Chris Mallory
December 4th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
Why limit it to the Dark Continent? Eastern Europe and SE Asia are both hotbeds of sexual slavery. I guess they are gonna be busy little fellows.
Chris Mallory
December 4th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
By your standard, the people who shoot abortion doctors should go free as well.
minemule
December 4th, 2009 at 8:39 am
I’m already a slave, and so are you. Lincoln’s war to preserve the glorious Union has turned us all into debt slaves and wage slaves to the money changers on Wall Street. That’s what the war was all about.
liberranter
December 4th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
AMEN!!! Your statement sums it all up quite nicely. Read Jeffrey Rogers Hummel's seminal work Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men: A History of the American Civil War for THE definitive history of the destructive abomination that court historians have misnamed the Civil War.
Johnny Yuma
December 4th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
Are you telling me what my standards are? Because, I haven't said a word about how I feel about abortion or abortion doctors.
Anyway, you've only reiterated your first post. I responded. Instead of a response to my post, you've simply repeated yourself. Should I repeat my self now or would you like to give me something fresh to work with?
Here, try this one: Do you think that kidnappers, rapists, and murderers should go unpunished?
No?
Neither did John Brown.
Johnny Yuma
December 4th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
I agree with you all the way on this one.
Henry_Clemens
December 4th, 2009 at 5:27 pm
For those who would like to know the truth concerning the War of Northern Aggression, I would suggest reading the following two books: The Real Lincoln by Thomas DiLorenzo and When in the Course of Human Events by Charles Adams. Once exposed to the REAL truth, you will never look at "Father Abrahams" war the same way ever again – I guarantee it.
Henry_Clemens
December 4th, 2009 at 6:35 pm
"The Gettysburg speech was at once the shortest and the most famous oration in American history…the highest emotion reduced to a few poetical phrases. Lincoln himself never even remotely approached it. It is genuinely stupendous. But let us not forget that it is poetry, not logic; beauty, not sense. Think of the argument in it. Put it into the cold words of everyday. The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination – that government of the people, by the people, for the people, should not perish from the earth. It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves." – H.L. Mencken
Not a Yankee
December 4th, 2009 at 6:50 pm
I guess that James Bovard think that George Washington & co. should have been hanged (or perhaps "hanged, drawn and quartered" as the punishment for high treason was) too. After all, the American revolutionaries started a bloody war that killed a lot more people than John Brown ever did. Of course, you can say that the revolutionaries were fighting a just war against oppression. Well, so did John Brown. In fact, the conditions for upper-class whites in colonial North America was a piece of cake compared to that of the slaves in Virginia and elsewhere in 1859. So they had much less reason to rebel.
And it is especially strange when people supporting the 1861 Confederate rebellion in (which was one side of a very bloody war) are condemning a much smaller, less bloody and at least just as just rebellion two years earlier.
And what if the USA turns into a tyranny, and Ron Paul leads the libertarian rebellion. Should he be hanged too?
BOVARD » John Brown: One Terrorist Who Deserved Hanging
December 4th, 2009 at 11:16 am
[...] #2: I also posted this comment on the Antwar.com website here where it is evoking lots of denunciations and also some [...]
Michael Dawson
December 4th, 2009 at 11:34 am
So, you believe in compromising with slavers? Nuff said. You just disqualified yourself from being taken seriously about what anybody “deserves.”
The North should have occupied the South for 50 years and executed all the terrorists who resisted Reconstruction. Instead, they compromised, giving us Jim Crow and the KKK.
Henry_Clemens
December 4th, 2009 at 8:24 pm
As an enlightened Southerner who loves liberty and hates both slavery and tyranny – especially the kind of slavery and tyranny that our present day federal government has forcibly imposed on all Americans – all I have to say is this: SLAVERY NEVER, BUT SECESSION FOREVER!
xiis
December 4th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
minemule,
are willing to offer yourself to be a slave?
Chris Mallory
December 4th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
John Brown was the Fred Phelps of his day, but he had guns.
risky biz
December 5th, 2009 at 3:39 am
Does anyone here realize that prior to the Civil War (or, War Between the States, take your pick), the average Southern slave had a higher standard of living than white factory workers in the North? You'll find those facts in contemporary census data.
The average field slave worked about four hours a day. They would be assigned a work product that they could usually finish in that time. Afterwards, they might be given a rifle to go hunt up some small game. Northern Army officers complained bitterly about the accuracy of black Southern snipers fighting for the Confederate Army.
This is not a rationalization of slavery but simply an attempt to instill some reality into some of the observations here. Harriet Beecher Stowe was a propagandist ignorant of that which she opposed so vociferously. What mass slaughter is complete without her ilk?
Other interesting notes: Thomas Jefferson complained just as bitterly as black sniper-plagued Northern armies about the slaves who escaped to British lines to gain the freedom offered by the British. The total number of escapees was estimated at about 40,000. It would be very interesting to know what became of them. After the British capitulation most of them were transported to England.
Mark Greene
December 4th, 2009 at 10:25 pm
This guy’s article reminds me of Jefferson Davis after the Appomattox surrender: bitter and futile as far as undermining the legacy of John Brown is concerned, but then neither Bovard nor Davis were slaves.
xiis
December 5th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
minemule,
not that kind of slave. why not offer your wife, daughters, sisters, mother to be sex slaves for the crips and bloods? thats what u white barbarians used to do to black back in the day.
xiis
December 5th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
these guys are neo-kkk wannabe slavers
xiis
December 5th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
if it was so good being a slave. how about u give up your children for a little while?
xiis
December 5th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
i think it would be a swell idea if some of the people here who are trying to whitewash slavery to submit themselves and their families to the same conditions as african slaves endured in the past for a period lets say of 6months. Some of the treatment will include gangrape of ones female relatives, branding, lashes and other forms of corporal punishment. Any takers?
americanintifada
December 5th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
You betchum, Red Rider! Give me 50 lashes, sir, but only if you play "Tied to the Whipin' Post" by those 'Bama born Allman Brothers !!!
americaintifada
December 5th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
In the words of that infamous American philosopher, Commander Cody: "One man's meat is another man's poison. " It is time to consider how tainted history has become due to a lack of knowledge from the dumbing down of the US educational system. John Brown was no hero, but will be pardoned because of people who lack common sense. Those states who still fly the Stars and Bars are commiting treason. They should either be hanged or join the rest of the world in the 21st, not 19th, century. Ah, but what do I know anyway. I'm just one of them thar' damned Yankees !!!
xiis
December 5th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
lol!!! i betcha u were one of those white cowards crying for daddy during 9-11
minemule
December 5th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
This is for xiis,
You are obviously a very ignorant person, but there is a remedy for ignorance and the remedy is known as education, followed by an accumulation of knowledge acquired by reading. Since you appear to be interested in the subject of black slavery (as I am) the best way to acquire knowledge of the subject is to read books that address slavery in specific detail or discuss it in conjunction with other related subjects.
If you would like to know more about the origins and history of the black slave trade as it existed in the 1700 and 1800s a good place to start would be to read the accounts and descriptions left by the first white explorers to travel into the interior of Africa in the mid 1700s and early 1800s.
The first explorer was Mungo Park who left an account of his travels in the form of a diary that was later converted into a book entitled "Travels in the Interior Districts of Africa". Another good book is the accounts left by Dr. Livingston, an English scientist and explorer who spent many years in Africa and who died in Africa.
minemule
December 5th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
This is for xiix (a continuation)
Then there are many books on black slavery as it existed in the South; " Amercian Negro Slavery", "The Peculiar Institution", "Adventures of an African Slaver" & "Life and Labor in the Old South". These are only four such books but there are many more that are all availaiable through Amazon.com as well as other book sellers.
With the ease information and knowledge that can now be aquired via the internet etc. there is simply no excuse for anyone remaining ignorant on any subject they wish to discuss. I do not see any point in individuals making statements and offering opinions that are based on nothing more than gross ignorance and heresay. If you have no disire or intention of becoming educated on a subject do yourself and everyone else a favor and stay out of the discussion.
Ron
December 5th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
No; actually there is a huge difference between establishing rules of society that apply to everyone and enslaving people because of their ethnicity.
americaintifada
December 5th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
Since I'm a transplanted Californicator born in Ohio, I got over the collapse about 2 hours after the towers fell. The only thing I cry for now is from being in the Guvernator's grossly unconstitutional and illegal chokehold whose "special election" put us in debt to the tune of 50 million taxpayer dollars, which he could personally pay for out his pocket change from cigar expenses and Hummer fuel. OUCH !!!
xiis
December 5th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
obviously ur an ignorant mule as your name implies. who else would attempt to justify slavery in 2009. u r plain old racist. period. if u think it was such a good thing. how would u like it if your white daughter were kept as slaves by black street gangs? because that is the present day equivalence of what u are advocating.
xiis
December 5th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
mr. mule,
if ur interested in venturing out of the trailer. i would recommend eric williams "capitalism and slavery" for a start. otherwise continue u your racist wet dreams mate. cheers.
xiis
December 5th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
well sounds like ur pretty fuckkkked mate lol! but blame it on your inbred racist cousins who keep voting for arseholes like him
xiis
December 5th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
more about american regression into barbarism:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2…
why am i not surprised to find the same people who support slavery also wholeheartedly support torture. u people are truly a sick society.
xiis
December 5th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
btw you still havent answered my question. are u willing to offer yourself or your family to be slaves? since its such a "peculiar institution"
xiis
December 5th, 2009 at 5:13 pm
btw most of the literature if u can call it even it that, is self-serving racist imperialist garbage intended to justify the atrocities of european atlantic slave trade and later on direct colonial rule. so please try again mate
minemule
December 5th, 2009 at 10:27 am
See what I mean by ignoranance? It’s plain for all the world to see that some folks like xiis were born in ignorance and intend to remain in that state. And sadly to say,there’s nothing anyone can do about it.. Maybe that’s why black Africa has always been and continues to be (by far) the most miserable, disease ridden, genocide racked continent on earth.
Not a Yankee
December 5th, 2009 at 9:29 pm
So I guess you see Thomas Jefferson as a terrorist rebel like John Brown? What's the difference?
It has even sometimes been suggested that one of the motivations for American independence was fear that the British would ban slavery in the colonies.
The slaves freed by the loyalists mostly settled in Canada I think.
xiis
December 5th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Livingston didnt explored didly mate. Newsflash there were already people living there u idiot. Or I guess to your warped racist mind Africans are not human huh?
xiis
December 6th, 2009 at 1:25 am
mr. mule,
why are u avoiding the question? if slavery was such a benign "institution" then are u ready and willing to submit yourself and family to it? it is a pretty straight forward question my friend. waiting for your answer. cheers!
xiis
December 6th, 2009 at 1:28 am
as for black africa`s current miseries i recommend u read walter rodney`s "how europe underdeveloped africa" . i am pretty sure even the local public library near your trailer park might have a copy.
xiis
December 6th, 2009 at 1:30 am
mr. mule,
on another note, do u by any chance also support torture i mean "enhanced interrogation techniques"? just curious mate…
Arthur
December 6th, 2009 at 2:05 am
John Brown was a reaction to extreme cruelty. He would not have been except for the vile existence of slavery. This article is strangely placed, I believe the author wishes to provoke responses for identification.
Henry_Clemens
December 6th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
The so-called "Civil War" was not waged by Lincoln to "free the slaves." It was fought to force the Southern states to remain inside the "Union" so that Lincoln could keep collecting Southern tax revenues (import tariffs – there was no income tax at that time). Southern paid tariffs totaled nearly 80% of all federal tax receipts. Lincoln, and the Republicans, needed Southern taxes to subsidize railroad and canal projects throughout the North and westward into the territories. Sorry, but that is simply the truth. There was no great moral crusade on the part of the Northern people to "free the slaves." Americans, North and South, have been lied to about the real reasons for the war between the North and the South for decades.
Henry_Clemens
December 6th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
Another book enlightened readers of Antiwar might find interesting: War Crimes Against Southern Civilians by Walter Brian Cisco. I highly recommend it.
Henry_Clemens
December 6th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
The so-called "Civil War" was not waged by Lincoln to "free the slaves." It was fought to force the Southern states to remain inside the "Union" so that Lincoln could keep collecting Southern tax revenues (import tariffs – there was no income tax at that time). Southern paid tariffs totaled nearly 70% of all federal tax receipts. Lincoln, and the Republicans, needed Southern taxes to subsidize railroad and canal projects throughout the North and westward into the territories. Lincoln, before he was elected, was a corporate lawyer for the railroad companies. Sorry, but that is simply the truth. There was no great moral crusade on the part of the Northern people to "free the slaves." Americans, North and South, have been lied to about the real reasons for the War of Northern Aggression for well over a century. The last thing the federal government wants the American people to know is this: the Constitution does not give the federal government the power to invade, occupy and murder the citizens of any state. The invasion of the South was unjust, unnecessary, murderous and unconstitutional.
André Brochu
December 6th, 2009 at 6:41 pm
James Bovard is an apologist for the structural violence of slavery. He ranks with the apologists
and deniers of the last centuries holocausts: the Indians of the Western hemisphere, the
Africans of the Belgian Congo, the Armenians of the Ottoman Empire, the Jews of Nazi occupied
Europe. How many millions of Africans died and suffered living hell under slavery ? John Brown
used violence in order to emancipate the downtrodden. Were the pro-slavery settlers of Kansas
pacifists?
André Brochu
December 6th, 2009 at 6:42 pm
I was born in Maine. If there is at least one thing Maine natives can be proud about it is the
fact that no other state offered as many sons per capita for the cause of the union and the resultant
abolition of slavery. If John Brown had been more successful perhaps fewer young Yankees
from Down East would have been butchered in battle and contracted fatal illnesses.
Not surprising that John Brown's detractors are alive and well in the belly of the monster,
the USA. The inheritors of John Brown's cause are abroad these days, especially among the
Latin Americans struggling for social, economic and ethnic freedom.
Thank you, John Brown !
André Brochu
minemule
December 6th, 2009 at 6:46 pm
I have not read that particular book but I have read several other books that describe in detail the war crimes committed by the Union Army against the civilian population in the South. And sadly to say, (but not surprisingly) the truth concerning this disgraceful chapter in American history has been glossed over and largely kept from public view due to the fact that the official version of the war was written by the victors. The result of course is that every public school student for the past 140 years has been taught a false and distorted view of what happened. And although the decision to wage total war against the civilian population of the South was approved by Lincoln himself, anyone inquiring into the war crimes are told that the crimes were a result of individual soldiers acting on their own behalf etc. If anyone ever deserved hanging as a war a criminal (other than George Bush and Dick Cheney) it would be Abraham Lincoln, along with his entire staff and military commanders. Especially general Sheridan and General Sherman.
MoT
December 6th, 2009 at 6:57 pm
Excuse me! You mean to say that poor white dirt farmers who barely could feed themselves warranted being killed over an institution, and slaves, they themselves could never afford? You'd have to be nuts to fight, defend, or even die for such an "institution" that you, with the pleasant comforts of distance and time, rail about. Clearly you have been indoctrinated, like myself formerly, into the historical "religion" preached in pubelick skrools. To say otherwise is considered sacrilege.
MoT
December 6th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
Funny how Lincoln, typical corporate lawyer that he was, saw no problem in representing a man to get back his slave before becoming president. While president his emancipation proclamation etc. etc. and any "laws" were only directed to the southern states and not the north. Hmmmmm. Odd? If the North was so hell bent on "freeing" the slaves then why didn't the do so during the course of the war? Hmmmm. Other nations did away with slavery without the need for so much bloodshed… on the order of millions today. Funny how I thought this was Anti-war.com but its filled with some of the most blood thirsty bastards around. Wolves in sheep's clothing indeed!
MoT
December 6th, 2009 at 7:08 pm
And if it existed for five, ten, fifteen years and then peacefully was abolished you'd have a problem with that? I guess 600K dead is your answer to anything. Long live the Maine!
MoT
December 6th, 2009 at 7:13 pm
And you believe all Southerners are/were in league and complicit with slave holders? I guess then they deserved to die even if they had nothing to do with the practice. Sucked to be them.
MoT
December 6th, 2009 at 7:20 pm
Bill made the point it wasn't necessary… regardless of what happened in Kansas. You obviously think hundreds of thousands need to die in order to move some agenda forward. Lets have a secessionist revolution today seeing as we're literally treated like slaves before the federal government. I'll side with you and say, "Lets do it".
minemule
December 6th, 2009 at 11:20 am
(this is for xiis)
I don’t recall stating that slavery was a benign institution. What I and other informed individuals have said is that slavery, as it was practiced in the South was not the cruel, inhumane institution that Hollywood and Yankee historians would have you believe it was. The written record does not show that it was that way, and testimonies given by hundreds of ex-slaves during the Federal Writer’s Project interviews of the 1920s and 1930s do not show it was that way. If you are interested in reading those interviews you can do so by referencing the Federal Writer’s Project on the internet.
One of the biggest reasons most people today have a distorted view of what slavery was like in the South is due to TV documentaries and Hollywood produced movies that invariably focus exclusively on the worse aspects of slavery. Political charlatans like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton acquire a six figure income from ignorant people like you who apparently believe everything they say.
As one earlier commenter stated, the average slave in the South enjoyed a much higher standard of living than the average mill worker in the industrialized Northeast. Historical records show that the average slave in the South worked and lived in a wholesome rural environment, was required to perform a reasonable amount of farm work, supplied with adequate food and clothing, provided with free medical care from the same doctors etc. as the slave owner, provided with adequate housing, and upon reaching the age of about 65, provided with free retirement. As a result, for the remainder of his or her natural life, the retired slave received the same food, shelter, clothing and medical care that he had received prior to retirement. There are many plantation diaries and records in existence that speak of retired slaves who lived on the plantation for many years and who upon their death, were buried with great love, respect and honor. In other words as a rule, the average slave lived his or her entire life completely freed from the cares and planning that we experience throughout life. Not too bad a deal I would say. Probably as good if not a better life than you are living right now.
minemule
December 6th, 2009 at 7:24 pm
this is for xiis (continued)
It is true that slaves were not free to come and go as they pleased, but in many respects they enjoyed many of the same freedoms as individuals serving in the military today. As any service member will tell you, they are not free to come and go anytime they feel like it and come back when they take a notion. But apparently, they consider their loss of personal freedom adequately compensated for by not being burdened with the necessity of making plans or decisions concerning the future.
minemule
December 6th, 2009 at 7:24 pm
this is for xiis
It is also true that a small number of slave owners were apparently cruel and sadistic individuals. But to judge and condemn the institution of slavery by the actions of a very small number of slave owners is both unjust and unreasonable. It would be like condemning the entire human race because every generation since Adam has produced a certain number of cruel and sadistic individuals who do unspeakable things to other people. For your information, there were penal laws in place to condemn and punish sadistic slave owners who were accused or convicted of administering overly harsh punishment to a slave. By these laws, a slave owner could not legally execute a slave without having the case reviewed by a competent court and a sentence passed that the execution could be carried out. That does not mean that a certain number of slaves were not illegally killed by their owners, but it probably happened about as often as a wife or husband kills their spouse.
minemule
December 6th, 2009 at 7:27 pm
this is for xiis (cont)
So to answer your question as to whether or not I would voluntarily offer myself or family member to be a slave I can truthfully say that it would depend on the circumstances I faced at any one time. I can readily see where there are quite a few situations I would voluntarily live as a slave if I were guaranteed I could live under the same conditions as most slaves did in the Old South. I can tell you a little bit of information that you probably don’t know. And that is that after being set free or buying their own freedom quite a few ex-slaves returned to their masters after a few years of struggle and asked to be taken back in as slaves
MoT
December 6th, 2009 at 7:31 pm
You've expended a lot of time and energy trying to convince someone who doesn't wish to be convinced. They're legends in their own mind and only a violent realignment in the present time space continuum would ever balance them out. It has to happen or else their idiocy, borne out of propaganda fostered "edumacration", will carry them and unwitting others to the grave.
MoT
December 6th, 2009 at 7:36 pm
Indeed. I'd love to peacefully divorce myself from the all smothering embrace of the Feds. If "freedom" and that mercurial "democracy", so many holler about for others but ourselves, is in fact true, then DC, and all anti-slave loving 'Murkins should welcome it. Uh-huh….. Ya think?
MoT
December 6th, 2009 at 7:42 pm
I wouldn't label JB a "terrorist" but he, like so many, deserved hanging regardless of the "cause" he championed. What about presidents, veeps, secretaries of state etc. in this day and age who give orders to bomb and blow up people who hadn't done a damn thing to us? Would they in fact not be considered "terrorists" by this yard stick? I venture they've killed, by direct or indirect "orders", countless more than Brown ever dreamed of. Ah… the luxury of being so "special".
Not a Yankee
December 6th, 2009 at 8:12 pm
You do realize that all the Northern liberals would celebrate your proposal? To get rid of the South-(east) would mean no more presidents like Bush, the Republican party reduced to almost nothing etc.
The old confederacy is, with the possible exception of some states in the Rocky Mountains area, the least antiwar and most militaristic place in the whole country. A resurrected CSA would be a neoconservative/theoconservative stronghold, but hopefully to weak to be starting wars in Iraq, Iran and elsewhere. The only problem is that the rest-USA will still be both strong enough and militaristic enough two continue the war in Afghanistan. So it probably has to be broken up some more. Let's secede the Northeast too!
Not a Yankee
December 6th, 2009 at 8:20 pm
Could a slave legally execute a slave owner? If not, why so?
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness…"
Slavery clearly violated the unalienable Rights of the slaves to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
You think the institution of slavery should not be condemned? What kind of authoritarian are you? Fascist, communist
Henry_Clemens
December 6th, 2009 at 8:29 pm
You make many valid points that I cannot argue with. Yes, if the United States of Empire was to be broken into several smaller regions then none of them would be strong enough to wage endless and perpetual aggressive wars! What a wonderful thought. Secession: an idea whose time has, at long last, come again.
minemule
December 6th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
Hell no the South would not be allowed to secede under any circumstances. I have given this a lot of thought and am convinced that if there were to become a serious effort ot secede from this rotten union of scumbags, that within 24 hours there would be Union troops on the steps of every court house and capitol building in every Southern State.
I have to agree with “not a yankee” that the South has more ignorant war mongers than any other part of the country. I am constantly embarrassed, ashamed, and plain pissed off at how stupid most people are especially Southerners. After what the Union did to us you would think anyone with any brains at all would hate the sons of bitches.
Jay Barr
December 6th, 2009 at 9:28 pm
By that same token you would have to be nuts to have voted for W. and his mega tax cuts for the rich unless you were yourself rich but instead he got more than a few votes from people who someday hope to be rich. Same thing back then, I can pretty much guarantee that 99% of those people too poor to be slave owners hoped that someday that would change. The rest were abolitionists.
MoT
December 6th, 2009 at 9:44 pm
I agree with you that you'd have to be nuts to vote for W… but, then again, I didn't. And neither did I vote for the other side of this twisted fraudulent coin thats passed off as government because they will and have done or supported the same. Robbery is robbery and murder is murder and "voting" in these circuses, with their liars and enabling boot licking slaves, called elections is a fools game. Read up on Lysander Spooner, the ardent and wonderful abolitionist I deeply respect, on this very subject. We have the luxury, for now, of commenting and observing from a distance. There may soon come a time when we don't and I wouldn't want wish upon anyone the sort of hell on earth that others have experienced… even upon you no matter what our differences may be.
MoT
December 6th, 2009 at 9:50 pm
The fighting spirit was twisted into something the fed-gov has used to bash in the brains of anyone who disobeys government. You see…. America is so "free" that you're free to shut the hell up, pay taxes with a gun to your head, and do as you're told by your new "mazzas" in DC. And they'll either imprison or kill you to prove it. So don't stray too far off the reservation.
Henry_Clemens
December 6th, 2009 at 9:59 pm
Did slavery ever exist in the North on a widespread scale. You can bet your liberal, self-righteous
Yankee butts it did!
Check this out for the whole sordid tale: http://www.slavenorth.com
It's too bad John Brown wasn't born a hundred years earlier. Why he could have gone north and taught those Yankee slavers a damned good lesson! And what is the lesson here for everyone? "Judge not, lest ye be judged by the same judgement."
Henry_Clemens
December 6th, 2009 at 11:30 pm
Did slavery ever exist in the North on a widespread scale? You can bet your liberal, self-righteous,
Yankee butts it did!
Check this out for the whole sordid tale: http://www.slavenorth.com
It's too bad John Brown wasn't born a hundred years earlier. Why he could have gone north and taught those dirty, rotton, Yankee slavers a damned good lesson! And just what is the lesson here for everyone? "Judge not, lest ye be judged by the same judgement."
CBrinton
December 6th, 2009 at 11:49 pm
"Southern paid tariffs totaled nearly 70% of all federal tax receipts."
What is the evidence for this? US Treasury figures from 1854-59 (i.e. from the Buchanan administration) show that less than 10% of Federal tariff revenue was collected at slave-state ports, and less than 7% at ports in the later-seceding states.
You can find the original numbers at http://eh.net/databases/customs/
Henry_Clemens
December 6th, 2009 at 11:52 pm
Is there any diffrence between the unjust, immoral, unnecessary and aggressive wars the U.S. government has waged against Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan and the war that the U.S. government waged against the Southern people in its "War of Northern Aggression?" No, their is not one dime's worth of diffrence. If there are any Americans who can't understand that plain and simple fact then I feel extremely sorry for their terminally ignorant and pathetic souls.
Henry_Clemens
December 7th, 2009 at 12:40 am
From page 27 of the book When in the Course of Human Events by Charles Adams where Mr. Adams is citeing total tax revenues collected on total export dollars earned by both the South and the North in 1860: "In both instances the percentages for the South (taxes and exports) was approximately 87 percent , and 17 percent for the North.
I stand corrected. It was not 70%; it was 83%! When I made the "70%" statement, I was relying on my memory and didn't want to overstate the facts.
CBrinton
December 7th, 2009 at 12:47 am
"Northern Army officers complained bitterly about the accuracy of black Southern snipers fighting for the Confederate Army"
Give a citation of such a complaint. And it might also be interesting if you could explain why, since (you claim) they had black "snipers" already, the CSA had such a bitterly fought debate in 1865 over whether they should allow blacks to be officially enlisted in the CSA army.
Henry_Clemens
December 7th, 2009 at 12:50 am
MoT is 100% correct. The sad truth is this: in federal elections, if voting could change anything, it wouldn't be legal.
CBrinton
December 7th, 2009 at 12:52 am
Adams' statement is wrong. He is quoting a speech which cites incorrect figures. From a Usenet post giving full details (see http://groups.google.com/group/soc.history.war.us… )
"Following up Adams's footnotes yields his source: "Jabez L. M. Curry,
"The Perils and Duty of the South, November 26, 1860", in _Southern
Pamphlets on Secession_, 35-54". This book is edited by Jon L.
Wakelyn. Adams gives the page numbers for the whole pamphlet, which
reproduces a speech Curry gave; Curry's claim about tariffs appears on
p. 50.
Curry states that "[a] report of the Secretary of the Treasury for 1838
shows that, in the five years 1833-37, out of $102,000,000 of
expenditure, only $37,000,000 were in the slave States; yet, during the
same years, they paid $90,000,000 of duties to $17,500,000 paid by the
free States." [p. 50]
Since Curry's claim only covers 1833 through 1837, it is hard to see
why Adams thinks it describes tariffs in the 1840s. More importantly,
though, Curry's numbers on "duties" (whatever exactly he means by that)
are simply incorrect. They bear no relation to the report he cites,
and I doubt Curry ever looked at the report himself. . . .
Assuming "duties" to be customs and miscellaneous (leaving out land
sales and single-state items), we get the following totals:
Free states (-NJ): $86.31
Slave states (+NJ): $13.22
This totals just under $100 million, leaving $8 million of Curry's
claimed "duties" unaccounted for. If anyone can find a way to get a
total of $107.5 million in "duties" from these figures, I would be
interested in hearing about it.
However, no matter what adjustments are made, the idea that the slave
states paid $90 million in "duties" between 1833 and 1837 is clearly
wrong. Even totaling all federal revenues including land sales and
treasury notes, from all slave areas including DC, gives a total of
only $44 million. The idea that the free states paid only $17.5
million is just as ludicrous: tariff collections from New York alone
were over $57 million in 1833-37. The New England states by themselves
collected $16.8 million in customs revenue, almost as much as Curry
says all the free states paid in all duties. "
Henry_Clemens
December 7th, 2009 at 1:14 am
If you don't mind, I will accept Mr. Adams statements at face value. If you have a problem with that, take it up with Mr. Adams. Lincoln wanted Southern tax money and lots of it to finance his cronies in the railroad business. From the article Abraham Lincoln In His Own Words by Andrew Young at lewrockwell.com: ""If I do that, what would become of my revenue? I might as well shut up housekeeping at once!" ~ Lincoln, in response to the suggestion by the Virginian Commissioners to abandon the custom house of Fort Sumter. Housekeeping is a euphemism for federal spending, in otherwords, taxing consumers to subsidize special interests, or what we would call today, corporate welfare."" Come on CBritton, you're a smart fellow, stop trying to defend the undefendable. Lincoln didn't invade the South to free the slaves; he invaded the South so that he and the Republican party could keep on looting the Southern people for decades to come.
CBrinton
December 7th, 2009 at 1:18 am
I must have missed the part where the Iraqi, Afghans, or Pakistanis stole US government property at gunpoint. Even before the attack on Fort Sumter, Confederate militias had committed clear acts of war by attacking Forts Morgan and Gaines (both in Alabama), the Apalachicola arsenal and Fort Marion (Florida), and Forts Jackson and St. Philip, the Baton Rouge arsenal, and the US Marine Hospital in New Orleans (Louisiana). All were all seized before the
respective states had passed secession ordinances, so there was not the slightest fig-leaf of legality.
Nor, as it happened, was Sumter the first exchange of fire: the Federal defenders of Fort Barrancas, Florida, repelled an invasion attempt with musketry on January 8. It was later concluded the fort could not be defended and it was abandoned.
I don't see any clear analogue to these actions by the governments of Iraq, Afghanistan, or Pakistan. Perhaps you do?
CBrinton
December 7th, 2009 at 1:31 am
"I will accept Mr. Adams statements at face value"
Feel free to do so–if you want to remain in ignorance. Mr. Adams's claimed sources on this matter do not support his claims.
What would you say of someone who took unsupported statements by, say, Karl Marx or Noam Chomsky "at face value" after having been shown information proving those statements wrong?
Also, Fort Sumter did _not_ contain a customs house. This is pretty obvious, really–customs houses are located where the docks are. If you put the customs house on a tiny offshore island, you'd have to unload everything on the island, get it assessed for customs purposes, then reload it on another boat and take it to the docks. That would be an idiotic procedure.
The Charleston customs house in 1860 (a new one was under construction but had not been completed) was the historic Exchange and Provost building, located at the intersection of East Bay and Broad Street. This location is some distance from Fort Sumter.
Can you cite an 1860 source agreeing with your idiosyncratic definition of "housekeeping"?
Lincoln fought the CSA leadership because, as he had pledged the Republican voters who elected him, he was determined to arrest the expansion of slavery and the counter aggressive designs of the slavocrat leadership. He had been willing to allow a gradual end to slavery, but when attacked he didn't back down. Nor should he have.
Henry_Clemens
December 7th, 2009 at 1:45 am
Sir, I get the feeling that if ten thousand angels swore to you that Lincoln didn't give one damn about the slaves; and that he was nothing more than a power-hungry, godless tyrant; and that he was a murderous butcherer of hundreds of thousands of Americans (North and South) that you would call them all liars to their faces. Sir, it is you that desires to live in and "remain in ignorance," not I. May God have mercy on you. End of conversation.
Henry_Clemens
December 7th, 2009 at 2:08 am
Sir, I have a few questions to ask you. Do the states have the right to secede or not? If they do have that right, and declare their intention of doing so, does not the property rights of all federal military facilities witin their borders physically, morally and legally pass to them? The federal government, in all the cases you mentioned, was given ample time to vacate said properties. It refused to do so. Was that not an act of war in itself? Does not a wife who is continually abused by a tyrannical husband have a right to go her separate way? Does she not have a right to take her property with her? Is the husband right to pursue her and force her to remain in a "union" that she can no longer tolerate? Stop trying to defend the undefendable. Stop trying to justify the unjustifiable. Lincoln, the Republican Party and the Northern people committed one of the greatest crimes in American history by their invasion and subjugation of the South. If I were a Yankee, I would be ashamed of my ancestors.
CBrinton
December 7th, 2009 at 2:18 am
I'll give my answers to your questions.
Do the states have the right to secede or not?
They have no such legal right, as shown by the fact that the seceding states pressed no legal claims. They might have a moral right, depending on the circumstances (needless to say, no such circumstances obtained in 1860-61).
If they do have that right, and declare their intention of doing so, does not the property rights of all federal military facilities within their borders physically, morally and legally pass to them?
Even if they had such a right, Federal property rights would _not_ legally pass as you describe. Nor, in my opinion, would it "morally" pass, whatever the "moral" descent of property rights might imply (this is not a concept I'm familiar with).
The federal government, in all the cases you mentioned, was given ample time to vacate said properties. It refused to do so. Was that not an act of war in itself?
No. Not under any understanding of casus belli that I am aware of, either from the antebellum era or a more modern one. Of course, it should be noted that casus belli is not very precisely defined in international law or practice.
To retain property to which one has clear and uncontested title is no act of war.
Does not a wife who is continually abused by a tyrannical husband have a right to go her separate way?
She does have such a right. This is irrelevant to the case at hand.
Does she not have a right to take her property with her?
She does have such a right. This is irrelevant to the case at hand.
Is the husband right to pursue her and force her to remain in a "union" that she can no longer tolerate?
He is not correct to do so. This is irrelevant to the case at hand.
As the remainder consists not of questions but of statements, I have no cause to answer it.
Gene Callahan
December 7th, 2009 at 2:21 am
So I guess where he called it an "odious institution" you think he was praising it?!
Henry_Clemens
December 7th, 2009 at 2:32 am
Now you want to argue that holy angels might be capable of makeing false statements. Good grief, do you enjoy arguing just for the sake of getting the last word? Pitiful.
CBrinton
December 7th, 2009 at 2:39 am
So, if holy angels told you that Jefferson Davis was an evil man and that Lincoln had been right to oppose him, you'd believe them?
I am no theologian, but from what I recall some angels (led by Lucifer) rebelled against God. It seems a logical extrapolation from this that angels are capable of error.
Henry_Clemens
December 7th, 2009 at 2:46 am
Sir, I believe that we have no other alternative but to agree to disagree. Unless you feel compelled to argue with that assertion of course. Now I'm beginning to understand why my Southern ancestors couldn't communicate with the people in the North. And still can't. Oh well, who gives a damn anyway.
Henry_Clemens
December 6th, 2009 at 7:18 pm
Just one final thought: based on the fact that slavery no longer exists in the South, if the South declared tomorrow that she no longer wanted to remain part of the "Glorius Union", would it be ok with the people in the North to just let the South secede peacefully? Your thoughts please, inquiring Southern minds who love liberty and freedom of association would like to know.
minemule
December 7th, 2009 at 5:33 am
The ten mile square District of Columbia was, and is the only property in the United States that was created specifically for use by the Federal government. It was created by one of the articles of the Constitution and belonged to the State of Maryland prior to it becoming the District of Columbia. All other Federal property (forts, harbors, dock yards, armories, court houses, post offices etc.) located in one of the 50 States first belonged to the State before being ceded by the State to the Federal government. The legal process by which a piece of property is ceded to the Federal government operates somewhat like a lease agreement. What this means is that the state does not actually give up ownership of the property but simply allows the Federal government to have use of the property. .
minemule
December 7th, 2009 at 5:33 am
ceded property (cont)
Therefore, when the Confederate States of America legally seceded from the Union and formed their own nation, all of the property that had been ceded to the United States reverted by to state ownership. Therefore when the South Carolina Miltia fired on Fort Sumter, they were not firing on United states property but were instead firing on their own property for the purpose of driving out the Federal forces who were illegally occupying it. Prior to firing on Fort Sumter, the state of South Carolina had already requested a return of their property and had given the Federal occupiers adequate time and opportunity to evacuate the property. As a sovereign state, South Carolina was completely within her rights to use military force to remove an illegal occupier
Gary D
December 7th, 2009 at 7:13 am
Fact: The Civil War was fought over the extension of slavery not the existence of slavery.
Fact: The Morrill Tariff placed the majority of the nations taxes on the people of the south to pay.
Fact: Only 4% of the southern population owned slaves, so what was everyone else in the south fighting for during the war.
Fact: Jefferson Davis had an adopted black son, that he had raised for 6 years, taken from him after the end of the war.
Fact: Abraham Lincoln once defended the ownership rights of a slave owner, whose salve had run-away to Illinois.
Fact: Abraham Lincoln said "I shall unify this nation even if I have to free the slaves to do it.
Fact: Everyone needs to do a little reading into actual history instead of simply believing what the government told them to teach you in school.
Fact: Regardless of anyones (John Brown, slave owners, Muslim fanatics, etc… etc….) beliefs or motivation, nothing justifies the butcher/slaughter of innocents.
Gene Callahan
December 7th, 2009 at 7:53 am
"Countrymen"? What country are you talking about?
Mike C
December 7th, 2009 at 8:39 am
He was not just another crazed butcher. The fact he was pronounced sane and as clear headed as any man is why he was hanged shortly after the trial. He insisted he was sane, and everyone who talked to him agreed.Anyone who has read anything about the era knows there was not going to be any kind of Big Compromise on the slavery issue. They couldn't even compromise on the compromises they spent months working on. And when it came to north vs south, border states like Virginia would side with the South no matter how important slavery was to them. Mighty big talk to say 'as slavery was gradually phased out' spoken by a non-slave 150 years after the fact. How long would you have that phase out last? Without force, you might still be apologizing for the South. No revisionist history I've read has convinced me slavery ever would have ended without war. Maybe you had to live in the times to understand that. Of course we could have evaded the Civil War – Buchanan would have been your idea of the perfect president. Most people rank him in the bottom 3 or 4.
What total crap.
Mike C
December 7th, 2009 at 8:58 am
Sold by their own countrymen? Africa has never been one country.And who cares what tribal chieftans got and don't act like every slave trader was from New England. Many northerners were involved in slavery. So what, so what? You should have stopped your after Not in the least. Pushing the blame all on Africans and Northerners and then accusing us of ignorance and hypocrisy on top of it is a bit much even for a Southern apoloigist.
Mike C
December 7th, 2009 at 9:45 am
Yeah, Yeah, they loved it. That's why none ever ran away. That's why southern whites never lived in mortal fear of slave uprisings and slave uprisings are why so many males were sold down river.Historical records show that one of the main topics of conversation among southern whites was the fear of slave uprisings and revolts. That's why vast majority of slaves didn't leave the plantations as soon as the bluecoats were within a county or so. That's why the vile Dred Scott decision didn't change many indifferent notherners into abolitionists. Slaves loved the idea of having no rights whatsoever that any white man, north or south, was obliged to respect. Give them a shack, free "medical" care, 3 hots a day and they were in heaven. Course that Aunt and Uncle crap got a little old after a while. Not to mention breaking up those families and stringing up whole towns of slaves after an uprising scare.
Southern planters took care of their slaves because it was good business. And what is your idea of a reasonable amount of farm work when you're paid zip? Are you totally in love with a welfare state?
CBrinton
December 7th, 2009 at 1:52 am
Now _there_'s a convincing reply!
When shown evidence you don't like, denounce the messenger. Good luck with that.
In factual discussions, people's motivations are simply irrelevant. Facts are facts, and fictions are fictions, no matter who points them out or why.
I can't, of course, say what I'd do if confronted with the Heavenly Host, but as a matter of logic even the statement of angels should not be accepted unless supported by evidence.
Whether it would be prudent to express doubt to an angelic choir might be questionable, though–some angels apparently take umbrage when questioned.
Gene Callahan
December 7th, 2009 at 2:23 am
John Brown was white, you nincompoop.
Mike C
December 7th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
Fact: Read the Declaration of Secession written by South Carolina Every single aryicle states that slavery is THE reason for seceding from the United States. The language is clear, and beyond a shadow of a doubt.They even described the US as being made up of slave-holding states and non slave-holding states. The future of slavery is not mentioned once.
Fact:The Morrill Tariff didn't go into effect until southern states already started seceding.It was the last legislation signed by Buchanan.
Fact: 25%, not 4% of the southern population owned slaves, The rest of the South fought because the rich had convinced them the entire economy would die if slavery died.
Fact:Jim Linder was a ward of the Davis family for slightly more than one year March 1864 to April 1865 when he was given to a Northern general.
Fact: The first Lincoln "fact" is wrong and the 2nd is a quote that everybody takes out of context. Lincoln was a strong abolitionist,- why else would the abolotionist Republican party run him for president and why was his name on no ballots south of the Mason-Dixon line?
Your last statement I would not argue.
Peacegeek
December 7th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
Slavery still exists. Slavery is terrorism. John Brown was not Gandhi nor his student, King. In the context of the 19th century, I stand with Emerson, Thoreau and Whitman – Brown was as praiseworthy as Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Danton, Saint Juste, Bolivar and Toussaint L'ouverture. Plucking people and incidents out of their historical context is the work of a fanatical idealist. Next, Bovard will condemn Jesus of Nazareth for scourging the money-changers, Mohammad for waging war on the pagans and David for slaying Goliath.
Henry_Clemens
December 7th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
To kill in self defense is not murder. To kill someone when it is not a situation of self defense is murder. By that definition, John Brown was clearly a murderer. Jesus never killed anyone, let alone murder them. To compare John Brown to Jesus is pure blasphemy. One cannot use evil means such as murder to put and end to evil. In other words, Satan cannot ever cast out Satan. When one tries to use evil means to put an end to evil, one becomes as evil as the evil he is attempting to eradicate. And you call yourself "Peacegeek?" Please, open up the Holy Bible and read chapter 5 in the book of Matthew (the "sermon on the mount). Then you will know what a man of peace truly is. Worship the true "Prince of Peace" and stop worshipping men. Put your hope, trust, and faith in Christ Jesus, the only human being who never sinned. He will never betray you, forsake you or disappoint you. But men, who are fatally flawed from birth, will never stop doing evil until God Himself puts and end to it.
Henry_Clemens
December 7th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
In response to "Peacegeek:" To kill in self defense is not murder. To kill someone when it is not a situation of self defense is murder. By that definition, John Brown was clearly a murderer. Jesus never killed anyone, let alone murder them. To compare John Brown to Jesus is pure blasphemy. One cannot use evil means such as murder to put and end to evil. In other words, Satan cannot ever cast out Satan. When one tries to use evil means to put an end to evil, one becomes as evil as the evil he is attempting to eradicate. And you call yourself "Peacegeek?" Please, open up the Holy Bible and read chapter 5 in the book of Matthew (the "sermon on the mount). Then you will know what a man of peace truly is. Worship the true "Prince of Peace" and stop worshipping men. Put your hope, trust, and faith in Christ Jesus, the only human being who never sinned. He will never betray you, forsake you or disappoint you. But men, who are fatally flawed from birth, will never stop doing evil until God Himself puts and end to it.
minemule
December 7th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
As to your question. The continent of Africa, or any other continent, can be thought of as several countries or states interconnected to one another. Black Africa consisted of numerous countries within Africa from which black slaves, who were already living in slavery to other Blacks, were brought to the west coast to be sold by African tribal chiefs to New England slave merchants. In the 1700s 2/3 of the black poulation lived as slaves to the other 1/3 of the population. And Southerners are supposed to apoligize for slavery?? Give us a break. As stated earlier, the tribal chiefs received Yankee produced goods in exchange for their property. Mostly New England rum and cotton fabric made in New York and New England sweat shops using child labor. I don't know why a simple process like this one presents presents so much difficulty to folks like you. I'm beginning to understand how frustrating it must be for teachers when the class rooms are all full of Oprah fans and game show addicts.
Henry_Clemens
December 7th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
My Southron pappy, God rest his soul, once gave me this very sound advice: "never argue with idiots. They will just drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience." It is time for me to follow his advice.
minemule
December 7th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
I sense your frustrations Mike. I know how hard it must be for folks like you to deal with historical facts that are opposite to the propaganda you have been taught in the government run public school sytem. But do yourself a favor and learn to think for yourself. That way life will not be so frustrating for you and you can experience real joy in your life by living with facts rather than fiction.
xiis
December 7th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
wow! and u called me ignorant! jesus! u r sounding more and more like a caricature lol!!!!
xiis
December 7th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
so u dont mind your daughter being gangraped in front of u with the offspring being sold off? thank you for making your ignorance and racism clear for all to see. cheers
xiis
December 7th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
mule,
how about the torture thing? or while we`re in the mood for good ole southern savagery, lynching?
xiis
December 7th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
it is great to see u vile americans owning up to and being proud of your barbarism for once instead of lecturing the world on "demokkkracy"
minemule
December 7th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
It is noteworthy that during the 4 years when 90 percent of Southern white males were away from home fighting the Yankee invaders, not a single slave rebellion occured. While Stonewall Jackson and Robert E. Lee's ragged Confederate soldiers were whipping hell out of the Yankees, the women folks and their slaves back home were doing the best they could with what they had. If slaves had to be guarded and watched every minute, as you mistakenly assume, then explain to me why they did not run away or rebel during the years when it would have been so easy for them to do so. Maybe Al Sharpton or Jesse J. can help you get an answer to this question.
As for not getting paid for their work and in lieu of a paycheck, slaves were provided with every neccessity of life and thus freed from all responsibility of providing for themselves. I can assure you that if an add were run today by an employment agency in any newspaper nationwide (or on the internet) offering the same working conditions under which most slaves worked, lived and died, there would be so many applications for the job until it would be difficult to process them all.
Henry_Clemens
December 7th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
On no, say it isn't so, slavery in the North?
www. slavenorth.com (patience, it takes a while for the page to load)
I especially liked the section: "Keeping the North White." And to think, for the longest time I thought that Northerners were the epitomy of godly righteousness and human virtue. The truth finally revealed – oh the shame of it!
minemule
December 7th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
The Yankee invaders did not win one major battle of the war until the war was practically over. Lee and Jackson's poorly clad, poorly armed, shoeless Confederate soldiers put one ass kicking after another on Uncle Sams well equipped army of mercenary soldiers hired by Lincoln and his gang of Wall Street money changers. One of the great tragedies of American history occured when the South lost the war for Southern Independence and was forced into Wall Street's corporate hell hole of sharpies and crooks. I say it is time for the people of the North and South to secede from this rotting corpse and unite in a common cause to restore the Constitutional Republic of Sovereign States we had prior to Lincoln's war of aggression.
Henry_Clemens
December 7th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
A must read for self-righteous Northerners: Abraham Lincoln's White Dream by Lerone Bennett Jr. (a black man). This book will put some much needed chocolate icing on your fine little self-baked, self-righteous, white cakes.
CBrinton
December 7th, 2009 at 6:18 pm
Mr. Bennett's book leaves out a lot of pertinent evidence, and often sets up the strawman idea that nobody who was racist could be anti-slavery. Mr. Bennett's race is (of course) irrelevant in assessing the quality of his arguments.
I could quote people of white southern origin who disagree with you on the issues of Abraham Lincoln and the civil war; their race would be equally beside the point.
CBrinton
December 7th, 2009 at 6:18 pm
When do you consider the war to have been "practically over"? And which battles count as "major"?
CBrinton
December 7th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
If you can find anyone who says there never was slavery in the North, or that the North was free of racism (or was "the epitome of godly righteousness and human virtue"), I will join you in disagreeing with that person. But I have heard very few people say that.
Even racists can be anti-slavery, and stopping the spread of an evil system like slavery is a cause well worth dying or killing for.
CBrinton
December 7th, 2009 at 6:24 pm
It's especially bad to argue with someone you call an idiot when that person brings up a lot more facts than you do, and when you are reduced to saying you'll take a discredited, incorrect source "at face value" because you like what it says.
CBrinton
December 7th, 2009 at 6:25 pm
Who said Southerners were supposed to apologize for slavery? I've always regarded such long-after-the-fact "apologies" as a complete waste of time.
Child labor was standard practice throughout the slave states, by the way.
Henry_Clemens
December 7th, 2009 at 6:44 pm
Hey minemule, have you noticed that Cbrinton has never posted an original comment? All this cat wants to do is to take cheap pot shots at the comments of others. Do you think he has any original thoughts or opinions of his own? We may not agree with the comments of others who are posting, but at least they have the courage and guts to state their thoughts and opinions right up front for all the world to see. I suspect that Cbrinton is a Lincoln idolator and apologist who works for the federal government-funded Claremont Institute.
Henry_Clemens
December 7th, 2009 at 7:45 pm
As a Southerner; who has nothing but pity those ignorant, misguided and lost souls who would still defend the tyrant Lincoln and the murderer John Brown, I have this to say: "though it might rile you to believe I perceive the webs you weave, I intend to keep on thinking free." My sincere apologies to the Moody Blues.
minemule
December 7th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
To answer your question.
After being informed of how the average slave lived in the south, just use your imagination and some common sense and you can construct the add yourself. It probably has not always been that way but considering the large number of abortions that are being performed each year in this country (particularly among the black population in the South) it does not appear from my vantage point that motherhood ranks extremely high in their estimation. Around here, a shot of crack cocaine is the most sought after commodity I know of. Added to that are the vast hoards of abandoned black children who have become members of intercity street gangs dealing in drugs, roaming the streets, and killing one another in drive by shootings etc. I would say that everyone of these unfortnate individuals would live a much more structured and useful existence as slaves on a plantation than they do now. At least they would have useful, meaningful work to do, a wholesome envionment in which to perform it, plenty of food to eat, and most importantly someone to whip their asses when they got out of line. If you are a black person, get down on your knees every night and thank the good Lord that your ancestors were lucky enough to be brought to this country as slaves. If you are not a black person, then do your good deed for today and find a black person who can read and give them this letter to read. You never know, it just might do some good.
minemule
December 7th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
major battles of the war
The Confederates won most of the major battles during the first 3 years of the war (which lasted almost exactly 4 years). They would have no doubt continued to win most of the battles if the Federal blockade of Southern ports had not reduced the Southern nation to the point of starvation. As to which battles constituted the major battles of the war, you would have to look at the number of battles and decide for yourself. Right off hand I would list The Battle of First Mannass (first battle of the war fought in July of 1860 & won by the South) The Battle of 2nd Mannass (won by the South) The Battle of Shilo, Tenn. (won by the South) The Battle of The Wilderness (won by the South) The Battle of Cold Harbor (won by the South) The Battle Chancellorsville in which Stonewall Jackson was mortally wounded (won by the South)
The Battle of Fredricksburg (won by the South) The Battle of Sharpesburg Maryland (considered as a draw), The Battle of Gettsyburg Penn. ( considered a military draw but a strategic defeat for the South).
The major battles won by the Union occured within about 1 year prior to the war coming to an end in April 1865.
minemule
December 7th, 2009 at 9:28 pm
major battles (cont)
Those would be The Battle of Vicksburg, Miss. (won by the Union after a 6 months seige) The Battle of Lookout Mountain, Tenn. (Won by the Union due to the incompetence of Confederate General Braxton Bragg), the Battle of Atlanta of Atlanta, Georgia (won by Union forces who burned the city following the battle. It is also the battle depicted in the movie "Gone With the Wind") The last major battle (which was not an actual battle as there were very few Confederates left to fight.) would be the capture and sacking of Columbia, S.C. Following the capture of this city Union forces first looted everything of any value from the city, then burned the entire city to the ground. It is estimated that millions of dollars worth of valuables were looted from private residences and shipped North by the victorious Yankee troops.
In virtually every one of the battles listed, including the first battles of the war, Confederate forces were always outnumbered by a much better equipped army comprising a ratio of at least 2 to 1 and often (as at the Wilderness) by a ratio of five to one.
minemule
December 7th, 2009 at 9:44 pm
major battles of the war (cont)
I had two great grandfathers and two great uncles who fought in the War for Southern Independence. Both of the great uncles died fighting in the war while my great grandfathers returned home to raise a family and run the Yankee carperbaggers and local scalwags away from their cotton barns and chicken houses. I like to think that in their spare time (if they had any) they celebrated with a stiff drink of whiskey the memory of every battle in which they kicked the hell out of the Damned blue coated Yankees. Today, I honor and cherish the sacrifice that my kin folk made, and I honor and am proud of the sacrifice every Confederate Soldier made in their effort to preserve the only lawful (dejure) government we ever had in this country. As far as I am concerned the present bunch of sharpies in Washington represents nothing more than martial law government installed by a military coup at the point of a bayonet. It represents an overthrow of the lawful government, which under the Constitution consisted of free sovereign States comprising The United States of America.
Henry_Clemens
December 7th, 2009 at 10:33 pm
From the article, Marching on to Virginia and Armageddon: John Brown and His Heirs, by H.Arthur Scott Trask, on lewrockwell.com.; ""During the initial fighting at Harper’s Ferry, Brown’s men ordered a man walking on the street to surrender. When he ran, they shot him in the back, just below the heart (he spent the night writhing in agony and died the next day). The victim (Shephard Hayward) was a free black, popular and respected in the town, gainfully employed as baggage master at the train station. They also fatally shot the mayor (Fontaine Beckham) in the face as he peered around a corner and an Irish grocer (Thomas Boerly) in the groin as he tried to cross the street. None of this caused Brown to lose any sleep. Not even the death of two of his sons during the battle, one of whom, Oliver, had been shot in the bowels and, in excruciating pain, begged to be shot. Brown told him to shut up and "die like a man."" Yes sir, that John Brown was one helluva "hero" all right. They ought to erect a statue in his honor and place it right beside the tyrant Lincoln's Greco-Roman temple that is dedicated to his worship.
Johnny Yuma
December 7th, 2009 at 10:38 pm
Wait, so you dislike tyranny but you're OK with slavery?
If its liberty and tyranny at stake, then the logically consistent options are to denounce Lincoln and praise Brown, or to denounce Brown and praise Lincoln. To denounce or praise both simultaneously makes no sense. I mean, unless you're just a strict partisan.
minemule
December 8th, 2009 at 1:27 am
Thanks for the additional info on John Brown's murderous crusade. After reading many of the post on this blog, it surprises me that so many Americans actually approve of every vile deed John Brown committed and worship at the feet of Dishonest Abe who was one of the worst war criminals this country ever produced. It makes you realize just how deranged and corrupt the American people have become. You have to hand it to the Yankees They have done a pretty damn complete job of de-sensitizing, brutalizing, and dumbing down the general population. Especially those under the age of 40 years old. It is nothing short of sickening to observe the large number of individuals who openly praise the actions of deranged murderers like John Brown and sing the praises of war criminals like Abe Lincoln and his coharts. In the coming tribulations headed our way may the Lord have mercy on and somehow protect all of us who have spoken out against the insanity that has engulfed and now rules this once great nation.
Henry_Clemens
December 8th, 2009 at 2:15 am
Johnny, there is no inconsistency in what I have said. I detest slavery and I detest those who would take away my liberty or yours. Lincoln forced the South to stay in his "union" at the point of guns and bayonets and thereby caused the unneccessay deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. Is that the mark of someone who loves and respects human liberty? John Brown attempted to force his opponents to stop their practice of slavery by murdering them in cold blood. Is that the mark of a person who claims to love and respect the principle of human liberty? God forbid it! Lincoln and Brown, by their actions, made a mockery of the god-given principle of human liberty. No, my friend, it is not I who am inconsistent in my love and respect for human liberty; it is those who think that good (in this case, "liberty") can be achieved by violent means (willful human slaughter) who are inconsistent in their so-called love and respect for human liberty. The South should have been allowed to go her on way in peace. And slavery should have been ended by the proven process of peaceful manumission.
Henry_Clemens
December 8th, 2009 at 2:30 am
minemule, I quite agree with all that you said. I, too, pray that the Lord Christ Jesus will protect those who truly love him in the weeks and months to come. It is obvious that the American people are in for some very hard times indeed. But as the great Robert E. Lee once said; "ours is to do our duty and the rest is in God's hands." I wish you well my friend and I wish you a very Merry Christmas!
CBrinton
December 7th, 2009 at 6:40 pm
Can you give us an example of what such an ad might look like? Remember to include the part about how the "employees" may have their children sold off to other owners.
Henry_Clemens
December 8th, 2009 at 2:58 am
For those who want to know the truth concerning the tyrant Lincoln's War of Northern Aggression and John Brown the cold blooded murderer: go to lewrockwell.com and click on "archives" and then click on "king lincoln." There are scores of articles there that will give you the truths of history. And, "the truth will set you free." May the grace of God be with you all. Peace.
CBrinton
December 8th, 2009 at 3:57 am
You wrote that "The Yankee invaders did not win one major battle of the war until the war was practically over." You appear to have abandoned that statement, which is a good idea, as it was laughably wrong.
However, you've managed to commit a bunch more errors in your update. The battle of Shiloh was not "won by the South", the CSA did well on the first day but was defeated on the second and had to withdraw. Military victories are not scored on a points basis but more by last man standing.
I would be curious to hear which military historians consider the Wilderness to have been a Southern victory and Gettysburg "a military draw"; standard references list these as inconclusive and as a Union victory, respectively. At the Wilderness, incidentally, the Union forces had less than a 2 -1 advantage (c. 110,000 to c. 65,000), not 5 -1 as you claim.
The Siege of Vicksburg ended on July 4, 1863, or 21 months before Lee's surrender–not "withing about 1 year" by any measure. Also, the siege lasted six weeks, not six months. The city was not surrounded until May 19, 1863.
Lookout Mountasin was fought more than a year and five months before Lee's surrender–again, not "within about 1 year."
But this string of errors is hardly surprising, one who believes slaves loved their lot and that moderns would volunteer for the same status clearly has some issues with reality comprehension.
ObamaKoolAidDrinker
December 8th, 2009 at 11:59 am
His Holiness Abraham Lincoln was a racial progressive who had an emancipatory vision of freedom for all men–just like our Messiah Barack Obama!
Was Abe Lincoln a White Supremacist?
http://tinyurl.com/y93ragx
http://www.prairie.org/humanities-resources/detou…
Abraham Delano Messiah Obama?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo165…
Mike C
December 9th, 2009 at 7:31 am
Nobody is asking for the South to apologize for slavery but every single one of you has blamed everybody involved except the southern class that perpetuated it. If there were slaves at one time in the north, we sucked, child labor is always indefensible (although if you think the mills and the mines in the South were innocent of it, I really suggest you read more than the main selection of the Confederate Book Club. What is the simple process that eludes us all? Yeah, tribal cheifs, any Yankess involved, any Yankees who once owned slaves are a stain on our history. But in the South it was an obsession and there was no way they'd have given up slavery or phased it out, and if you've read as much as you seem to think you have and as much as I know I have, you know thats true. The South cried states rights but the only right they ever complained about was the North supposedly trying to take away their "Noble Institution". In the meantime, it didn't bother them to get runaway slaves made federal fugitives rather than state fugitives so they could legally chase them until caught no matter what the Northern state's law was about it. But its always you guys have the facts and we're dishing up propaganda. In reality there is probably no more delusional and fantasy world people on earth than Southerners still fighting the Civil War. What's the simple process you're not following here? The South puished and pushed until they seceded and they seceded to keep slavery, no other reason. They were as aggressive militarily if not more so than the North. Yeah, they won most battles and were brave soldiers but the North ended up kicking their ass. And the slaves went free – god help them down there but who knew at the time? And all of that is everbody's fault but the South's?
xiis
December 10th, 2009 at 2:18 am
dont cry when its ur turn to be enslaved. remember its for your own good.
xiis
December 10th, 2009 at 2:38 am
mr. mule,
maybe blacks learned their family values from your white southern trash no?
xiis
December 10th, 2009 at 2:40 am
slavery in africa was basically domestic servants not the genocidal industrial scale atlantic euro-slave trade again please read eric williams "capitalism and slavery" to enlighten your atrophied brain.
cheers
xiis
December 10th, 2009 at 2:45 am
so mule,
i take it u think only black africans are fit to be slaves right? not your own family? well then u are a coward and a hypocrite.
cheers
uggsbootssaleonline
January 26th, 2010 at 1:28 pm
Our <a href="http://www.uggsbootssaleonline.com">Uggs Outlet online store supply all kinds of <a href="http://www.uggsbootssaleonline.com">Ugg Boots,such as <a href="http://www.uggsbootssaleonline.com/ugg-classic-cardy-c-2.html">Ugg Classic Cardy Boots,<a href="http://www.uggsbootssaleonline.com/ugg-bailey-button-c-18.html">Ugg Bailey Button Boots,<a href="http://www.uggsbootssaleonline.com/ugg-classic-short-c-1.html">Ugg Classic Short Boots,<a href="http://www.uggsbootssaleonline.com/ugg-classic-tall-c-3.html">Ugg Classic Tall Boots-All Orders Enjoy Free Shipping,Non-Taxes,1 Week Delivery To Your Door
hogan
August 1st, 2011 at 1:00 am
Hogan is the most famous brand in the world. Now this is a good news for you that our Hogan Outlet offer Hogan Sito Ufficiale and Scarpe Hogan.You can visit our website.We promise it will satisry you well.Because its latest technology and fashionable patterns
prada
November 17th, 2011 at 1:11 am
Devo sottolineare, che in tutto il tempo che ho speso on-line, a seguito di siti di informazione, non ho letto uno come utile e ben fatto come questo, io non frequentemente commentare web log comunque per te io sentito il bisogno di fare un'eccezione, questo è certamente il lavoro veramente alto e completamente opposta a quella sciocchezze, che trascorrono gran parte del mio tempo on line, lettura. Grazie per aver dedicato del tempo e investire lo sforzo di presentare i vostri lettori con un rapporto di 1 ° classe. Non vedo l'ora di leggere molto di più del tuo lavoro, ancora applausi.
Lancel
November 17th, 2011 at 11:12 pm
J'ai besoin de le souligner, que dans tous les temps que j'ai passé en ligne, sites d'information suivants, je n'ai pas lu un aussi utile et bien conçu que celui-ci, je n'ai pas souvent des commentaires sur internet des journaux néanmoins pour vous-même, jeressenti le besoin de faire une exception, ce n'est certainement travail vraiment haut et totalement opposé à l'imbécillité, qui je passe beaucoup de mon temps sur la ligne, la lecture. Merci de prendre le temps et investir l'effort de présenter à vos lecteurs avec un rapport de 1ère classe. J'ai hâte de lire beaucoup plus de votre travail, à nouveau des acclamations.
Sac longchamp
November 24th, 2011 at 1:08 am
Ceci est ma première fois que je visite ici. J'ai trouvé tellement de choses intéressantesdans votre blog, en particulier sa discussion. Du tonnes de commentaires sur vos articles,je suppose que je ne suis pas le seul à avoir tout le plaisir ici! Continuez votre excellent travail.
Terence Cannon
December 31st, 2011 at 8:22 pm
Slavery is war. How does an "anti-war" blog come off attacking a leader of the resistance against war?