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]
mr. mule,
on another note, do u by any chance also support torture i mean "enhanced interrogation techniques"? just curious mate…
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.
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.
Another book enlightened readers of Antiwar might find interesting: War Crimes Against Southern Civilians by Walter Brian Cisco. I highly recommend it.
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.
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.
"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/
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.
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. "
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.
"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.
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.
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.
Now you want to argue that holy angels might be capable of making false statements. Good grief, do you enjoy arguing just for the sake of getting the last word? Pitiful.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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."
(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.
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.
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?
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.
wow! and u called me ignorant! jesus! u r sounding more and more like a caricature lol!!!!
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.
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
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
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
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".
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.
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.
MoT is 100% correct. The sad truth is this: in federal elections, if voting could change anything, it wouldn't be legal.
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."
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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!
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.
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. .
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
mule,
how about the torture thing? or while we`re in the mood for good ole southern savagery, lynching?
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"
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
When do you consider the war to have been "practically over"? And which battles count as "major"?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
dont cry when its ur turn to be enslaved. remember its for your own good.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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…
mr. mule,
maybe blacks learned their family values from your white southern trash no?
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
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
Slavery is war. How does an "anti-war" blog come off attacking a leader of the resistance against war?
I COMPLETLY disagree! Slaveowners harmed and even killed slaves by whipping them to create fear. If anything then slaveowners should be hung too!!! The US uses drones in the middle east to send bombs and kill targeted terrorist shut end up killing a mass of innocent civilian as well. The question is then Is America terroists? John BRown was only trying to end a terrible thing which killing was indeed necessary. He was trying to end slaves horrific times. ????????
God bless John Brown. He lives and survives the lies of the slave masters' seed.
Absolutely perfect to explain the things.It helps me a lot to understand the things.thanks for share the great info.
??? ???????
??? ????????
??? ???
??? ?????
??? ??? ?????
??? ????????
??? ???
???
????? ??
???? ??
????? ????
???? ?? ????
????? ??
????? ??? ?????
????? ?????
????? ???
??? ??????? ??? ???????
??? ?????
??? ?????
??? ?????
??? ?????
??? ?????
??? ?????
???
??? ?????
??? ?????
???
??? ?????
??? ???
??? ??????
??? ???
??? ??
?????? ?????
???
????? ???
??? ????
?????
??
????
???? ?? ????
??
????
???? ????
???????
??????? ?????
??? ?????
??? ?????
??? ???????
??? ??
???? ?? ????
??? ?? ????
??? ???
??? ????
???? ???
??? ????? ?????
??? ???? ?????
??? ???? ?????
??? ?????
??? ???