Posted on 10/16/2009 11:16:18 AM PDT by Kid Shelleen
--snip-- It was 150 years ago today, Oct. 16, 1859. The long-haired, wild-eyed Brown was about to launch a raid that would hasten the Civil War and make him the most notorious man in America, a figure who still ignites controversy a century and a half later. Some see him as an Osama bin Laden; others, as a Christian soldier who gave his life to end human bondage.
"You could ask 100 people about John Brown and still get 100 opinions," said Jeff Bowers, a ranger at Harpers Ferry National Historical Park, which plans three days of activities this weekend to commemorate Brown's raid
(Excerpt) Read more at philly.com ...
Hoo boy, this is gonna be good.
Harpers Ferry is one of my favorite spots to visit.
No matter what one’s politics, if one considers John Brown objectively, they would necessarily conclude he was a nut.
I agree. One might then decide that the nut was either on the right side or the wrong side — but the bottomline is that he was a nut.
I believe that the proper clinical term would be batsh*t crazy.
John Brown’s body lies a-mouldering in the grave, /|
John Brown’s body lies a-mouldering in the grave,
But his soul goes marching on.
Chorus:
Glory, glory, hallelujah, /|
Glory, glory, hallelujah,
His soul goes marching on.
He’s gone to be a soldier in the Army of the Lord, /|
He’s gone to be a soldier in the Army of the Lord,
His soul goes marching on.
Chorus:
John Brown’s knapsack is strapped upon his back, /
John Brown’s knapsack is strapped upon his back,
His soul goes marching on.
Chorus:
John Brown died that the slaves might be free, /
John Brown died that the slaves might be free,
His soul goes marching on.
Chorus:
The stars above in Heaven now are looking kindly down, /
The stars above in Heaven now are looking kindly down,
His soul goes marching on.
Brown was fruitcake nutty.
Let’s see: bearded wild-eyed murderous religious zealot.
John Brown was reincarnated as a Muslim terrorist.
The most interesting thing about John Brown were the radical New Englanders who bankrolled his efforts to start a race war in America.
An attack on an American military facility....part of an effort to start a bloody war against the United States government....the man who carried it out and his followers believed God called them to such violence....
In 1859, the above described episode was quickly ended by the military and a “short drop with a sudden stop” for the leader swiftly followed.
In 2001, the above described episode still drags on with lawyers, judges and politicians arguing over endless minutia while the perpetrators either plan more attacks of get fat off the taxpayer’s largess.
You guys could never own an NFL team.
It’s definitely nutty to believe that all men should be free
Taht no one did is a tragedy of history.
I think the most interesting thing about Brown was that he was tried, convicted, and executed for the crime of treason against the Commonwealth of Virginia. How can you commit treason against a place you weren't born in and had never lived in?
Good post. The New England Transcendentalists were the Hollywood Left of their day. Otto Scott wrote an excellent book on their secret support for John Brown’s campaign of terror that began in Kansas.
one of the fist people killed at harpers ferry was a free black man
The north turned the tide on the bodies of Irish immigrants. The same Irish immigrants that staged a draft riot in NYC that lasted 3 days and lynched a goodly number of blacks. So tell me again what was the norths point? Oh yea, southerners should pay for the norths leadership and enrichment. This is how it turned out. Don’t know that the blacks were well served by the exercise, but some say they were. Destroying half your country doesn’t seem such a great achievement unless your selling steel, canned goods, and textiles. Oh yea, so the north did win something - profits.
“one of the first people killed at harpers ferry was a free black man”
That was Hayward Shepherd, a baggage handler on the railroad, who was shot and killed by Brown’s gang when he confronted them.
“The long-haired, wild-eyed Brown was about to launch a raid that would hasten the Civil War “
But don’t they know? The Civil War was not about slavery at all, it was about state’s rights!!
(by the way, the above was pure sarcasm, if you couldn’t tell).
I don’t think either side was worth fighting for.
John Brown was insane yes, but also totally demon possessed just as the New England apostates who funded him and egged him on were.
The Southern States were ardent “State’s Righters” . . . with the exception that they wanted the Federal Government to force the Northern States to capture their runaway slaves for them, something the Northern States did not want to do.
Of such contradictions, was the hypocrisy of the South made apparent. The truth is the less profitable slavery was in a particular state, the more opposed to slavery the state was on “moral grounds”. Actually, it had everything to do with profits, and much less to do with morals.
Jefferson was convinced that slavery would die out when the huge profits did. The invention of the cotton gin gave an unwelcome boost to the slave economy. Slavery would have been abolished peacefully as it became economically untenable. This is how slavery was abolished in states like Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, peacefully, without violence.
I'm guessing the Buchanan justice department was more than willing to let Virginia take on this case alone.
“The Southern States were ardent “State’s Righters” . . . with the exception that they wanted the Federal Government to force the Northern States to capture their runaway slaves for them, something the Northern States did not want to do.”
A fact which indicates that Lincoln wasn’t motivated by the intention of abolishing slavery in the South. Had this been his goal he simply would have let the deep south secede. He would have been under no obligation to return any runaway slaves to the CSA and this would have made slavery untenable.
“Of such contradictions, was the hypocrisy of the South made apparent. The truth is the less profitable slavery was in a particular state, the more opposed to slavery the state was on “moral grounds”. Actually, it had everything to do with profits, and much less to do with morals.”
This is a good point that also exposes the hypocrisy of the North. Slavery had been practiced in the North as well, but abandoned over time as it wasn’t especially profitable there. So being clever businessmen they sold their unwanted slaves down south. Many a great yankee fortune owed its existence to the trans-Atlantic slave trade. People are surprised to learn of the large slave cemetery found near New York City, of the slave riots that occurred there during colonial times. And while the “Plantations” part of the full name of Rhode Island has nothing to do with slavery the fact remains that black and Indian slaves were kept in that state and Providence and Newport were major ports in the slave trade triangle.
Brown was also tried for multiple counts of murder. It doesn’t look like your court challenge will exonerate him.
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world.
Its labor supplies the product, which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth.
These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun.
These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization.
How involved was the Federal government in prosecuting cases at that time? It took Lincoln to do in the significance of the states and make them mere organizational districts under the national government.
I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.
Abraham Lincoln
First Inaugural Address
Monday, March 4, 1861
http://bartelby.org/124/pres31.html
Ask 100 college kids who John Brown was and 99 will say an R & B singer or Al Gore’s vice-president.
Well I'm no legal historian but if the feds could prove that Brown's assault took place at the armory itself along with the town then I imagine they'd have had jurisdiction to take action against Brown.
Or the Sheriff from Bob Marley's "I Shot the Sheriff"
They definitely punted it, that's for sure.
As well as formenting insurrection among the slaves. But that still doesn't explain that first charge, which he was convicted on BTW.
It doesn’t look like your court challenge will exonerate him.
Wasn't meant to. Brown was guilty as sin. But the murder and slave insurrection charges were enough to hang him. Why toss in the asinine treason charge as well?
Abraham Lincoln wasn’t “looking for a fight” with the South. But he certainly wasn’t going to walk away from one either.
He wanted to end slavery and probably was delighted with all of the tactical errors that the “fire-eaters” of the South made and basically allowed him to use the Union Army for that purpose.
To believe Lincoln was a great President, you must first believe that Civil War was inevitable. I don’t happen to be in that camp. I think a more skillful, diplomatic, and motivated President could have delayed the conflict until the political and economic circumstances of slavery were resolved.
There might have been lynching in the NY draft riots, but that diminishes significantly by the CSA process of lynching ALL black soldiers when captured. No trial, no court martial and no due process. Just hang them. So, in your words, while the North was selling steel and textiles for their “enrichment”, the South was indiscriminately and shamelessly murdering black soldiers. So much for their self-imposed “honor”.
‘Abraham Lincoln wasn’t “looking for a fight” with the South. But he certainly wasn’t going to walk away from one either.’
I think that may be a bit hard to defend. He decided to resupply Fort Sumter smack in the middle of Charleston Harbor. He wasn’t a fool, he knew it was a provocation, and a provocation in a State that had gone to the brink of war with Andrew Jackson over the tariff. And since the firing upon Fort Sumter resulted in exactly one fatality, that being a horse, his calling for an invasion force is out of proportion unless he was seeking a pretext for war. And Lincoln called up the Army while Congress was out of session. The decision was his alone.
“He wanted to end slavery and probably was delighted with all of the tactical errors that the “fire-eaters” of the South made and basically allowed him to use the Union Army for that purpose.”
I’m sure he was delighted. It’s my belief that he sought to maneuver the fire-eaters into taking a first shot. He wasn’t innocently awaiting events.
“To believe Lincoln was a great President, you must first believe that Civil War was inevitable. I don’t happen to be in that camp. I think a more skillful, diplomatic, and motivated President could have delayed the conflict until the political and economic circumstances of slavery were resolved.”
On that we agree. Seeking or blundering into a war that kills 600,000 of your 36 million countrymen and lays waste to a major portion of your country shouldn’t qualify you as “great”, even if you end up with a temple honoring you like some sort of semi-divine Roman emperor. Not to mention that the rest of the western hemisphere managed to end slavery without a war, Haiti being the sole exception.
I’m sure that they had ample reason. I’m just not sure that Federal prosecutions were very common in that era. They may have deferred to States.
The greatest “what if?” of the entire Civil War Conflict is what if William Seward had gotten the Republican nomination , instead of Lincoln. Seward of course was favored to win the nod, but Lincoln’s political operatives outmaneuvered Seward by having the convention in Chicago and trading convention votes for political payoffs and Cabinet Seats. One reason Lincoln had so many rivals on his Cabinet (some of them incompetent and corrupt) was because they had been promised government seats in return for their support. Lincoln also refused to appoint anyone to his original Cabinet who hadn’t supported him for President. No Southerners and no moderates.
Seward as Secretary of State was a major supporter of the Critenden Compromise, which Lincoln absolutely hated. Lincoln was aganst any compromise from the Republican Platform that had been adopted at Chicago. Seward was also a major expansionist (Alaska) and agreed with the South to annex slave countries like Cuba and Nicaragua in part of a deal to avoid Secession. Lastly, Seward was a Senator and knew Jefferson Davis and all of the other “firebrands” on a personal basis . .. Lincoln was clueless as he had been in Illinois all those years. To the very end, he was convinced that the South was “bluffing”. Seward knew better.
That’s very interesting, I didn’t know that about Seward.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.