Posted on 07/06/2013 7:37:16 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Except that they are.
Recall the New Convenant, that some use to get around the clear moral rules provided in Torah. Oh, that is the Old Covenant, we don’t have to pay attention to that. To do so would be an anacronism.
John Brown had defended Lawrence, Kansas against slave power raiders, and had held his position despite being greatly outnumbered.
From that he developed an exaggerated sense of the power of the defense. His desire was to use the modern arms of the Harpers Ferry arsenal to arm slaves, and teach them defensive-offensive tactics. (like the Hussites used) to infiltrate a slave power plantation, and then defend against the expected slave power counterattack.
Didn’t work because his defensive tactics were used against him. Local militia took up defensive positions preventing him from brining in slaves for his insurrection. A small contingient of Marines, augmented with adult leadership (Lee and Stuart) assaulted the defended building.
His trial was, to my mind, a legal travesty. Treason? For actions committed against a state to which he had never expressed nor owed no loyalty?
Don’t the lost causers tell us that really only one’s loyalty to ones’ home state was important? At the same time they ignore Breckinridge (former VP and presidential candidate) and his turning his back on Kentucky to sign on as a General with the pretended confederacy.
Of course John Brown did try to foment a servile insurrection. He was responsible for the killing of a freedman. That wasn’t enough for the slave power, and so a brilliant agriculturalist, a naturally gifted tactician and a political crank was (to my mind) illegally condemned to death. The slave power was never interested in legal nicities. They were about power.
Reminds me of some people today.
I think a more fundamental defect in the trial itself was the refusal by the judge to grant even a short continuance so that Brown could bring in counsel of his choosing. Moreover, he was convicted before his wounds had healed and he spent much of his trial lying on a cot. But, the judge was in a hurry because he wanted to finish Brown's trial and the separate trial of his co-defendants before he would be expected to move to the next town on his circuit. Any kind of delay would have thus required a delay of months until the judge returned to town. There was much concern about a possible rescue and also a possible lynching by the good townsfolk.
Now, remind me, what did you say Brown did at Pottawatomie?
With only two dozen men he successfully defended the free-soil town of Osawatomie, Kansas (on August 30) against an attack of about 400 men, earning him the nickname “Osawatomie Brown.
Thanks for pointing out the variation of the Virginia law on Treason. I had not been aware of that.
From Wikipedia:
“Brown and the free settlers were optimistic that they could bring Kansas into the union as a slavery-free state. But in late 1855 and early 1856 it was increasingly clear to Brown that pro-slavery forces were willing to violate the rule of law in order to force Kansas to become a slave state. Brown believed that terrorism, fraud, and eventually deadly attacks became the obvious agenda of the pro-slavery supporters, then known as “Border Ruffians.” After the winter snows thawed in 1856, the pro-slavery activists began a campaign to seize Kansas on their own terms. Brown was particularly affected by the Sacking of Lawrence in May 1856, in which a sheriff-led posse destroyed newspaper offices and a hotel. Only one man, a Border Ruffian, was killed. Preston Brooks’s caning of anti-slavery Senator Charles Sumner also fueled Brown’s anger. These violent acts were accompanied by celebrations in the pro-slavery press, with writers such as Benjamin Franklin Stringfellow of the Squatter Sovereign proclaiming that pro-slavery forces “are determined to repel this Northern invasion, and make Kansas a Slave State; though our rivers should be covered with the blood of their victims, and the carcasses of the Abolitionists should be so numerous in the territory as to breed disease and sickness, we will not be deterred from our purpose” (quoted in Reynolds, p. 162). Brown was outraged by both the violence of the pro-slavery forces, and also by what he saw as a weak and cowardly response by the antislavery partisans and the Free State settlers, whom he described as “cowards, or worse” (Reynolds pp. 163–164).”
Biographer Louis A. DeCaro Jr. further shows that Brown’s beloved father, Owen, had died on May 8, 1856 and correspondence indicates that John Brown and his family received word of his death around the same time. The emotional darkness of the hour was intensified by the real concerns that Brown had for the welfare of his sons and the free state settlers in their vicinity, especially since the sacking of Lawrence seems to have signaled an all-out campaign of violence by pro-slavery forces. Brown conducted surveillance on encamped “ruffians” in his vicinity and learned that his family was marked for attack, and furthermore was given supposedly reliable information as to pro-slavery neighbors who had aligned and supported these forces. Speaking of the threats that were supposedly the justification for the massacre, Free State leader Charles Robinson stated, “When it is known that such threats were as plenty as blue-berries in June, on both sides, all over the Territory, and were regarded as of no more importance than the idle wind, this indictment will hardly justify midnight assassination of all pro-slavery men, whether making threats or not... Had all men been killed in Kansas who indulged in such threats, there would have been none left to bury the dead.”[25]
The pro-slavery men did not necessarily own any slaves, although the Doyles (three of the victims) were slave hunters prior to settling in Kansas. According to Salmon Brown, when the Doyles were seized, Mahala Doyle acknowledged that her husband’s “devilment” had brought down this attack to their doorstep – further signifying that the Browns’ attack was probably grounded in real concern for their own survival. Sometime after 10:00 pm May 24, 1856, it is suspected they took five pro-slavery settlers – James Doyle, William Doyle, Drury Doyle, Allen Wilkinson, and William Sherman – from their cabins on Pottawatomie Creek and hacked them to death with broadswords. Brown later claimed he did not participate in the killings, however he did say he approved of them.
In the two years prior to the massacre, there had 8 killings in Kansas Territory attributable to slavery politics, and none in the vicinity of the massacre. Brown murdered five in a single night, and the massacre was the match in the powder keg that precipitated the bloodiest period in “Bleeding Kansas” history, a three-month period of retaliatory raids and battles in which 29 people died. [26]
“Palmyra and OsawatomieA force of Missourians, led by Captain Henry Pate, captured John Jr. and Jason, and destroyed the Brown family homestead, and later participated in the Sack of Lawrence. On June 2, John Brown, nine of his followers, and twenty local men successfully defended a Free State settlement at Palmyra, Kansas against an attack by Pate. (See Battle of Black Jack.) Pate and twenty-two of his men were taken prisoner (Reynolds pp. 180–181, 186). After capture, they were taken to Brown’s camp, and received all the food that Brown could find. Brown forced Pate to sign a treaty, exchanging the freedom of Pate and his men for the promised release of Brown’s two captured sons. Brown released Pate to Colonel Edwin Sumner, but was furious to discover that the release of his sons was delayed until September.”
“In August, a company of over three hundred Missourians under the command of Major General John W. Reid crossed into Kansas and headed towards Osawatomie, Kansas, intending to destroy the Free State settlements there, and then march on Topeka and Lawrence.[27] On the morning of August 30, 1856, they shot and killed Brown’s son Frederick and his neighbor David Garrison on the outskirts of Osawatomie. Brown, outnumbered more than seven to one, arranged his 38 men behind natural defenses along the road. Firing from cover, they managed to kill at least 20 of Reid’s men and wounded 40 more.[28] Reid regrouped, ordering his men to dismount and charge into the woods. Brown’s small group scattered and fled across the Marais des Cygnes River. One of Brown’s men was killed during the retreat and four were captured. While Brown and his surviving men hid in the woods nearby, the Missourians plundered and burned Osawatomie. Despite being defeated, Brown’s bravery and military shrewdness in the face of overwhelming odds brought him national attention and made him a hero to many Northern abolitionists,[29] who gave him the nickname “Osawatomie Brown”. This incident was dramatized in the play Osawatomie Brown.”
“On September 7, Brown entered Lawrence to meet with Free State leaders and help fortify against a feared assault. At least 2,700 pro-slavery Missourians were once again invading Kansas. On September 14 they skirmished near Lawrence. Brown prepared for battle, but serious violence was averted when the new governor of Kansas, John W. Geary, ordered the warring parties to disarm and disband, and offered clemency to former fighters on both sides.[30] Brown, taking advantage of the fragile peace, left Kansas with three of his sons to raise money from supporters in the north.
Here's a good book focusing on the trial: John Brown's Trial
Brown was a true believer.
The slave revolts of the Caribbean had a clear and important impact on Brown’s views toward slavery and his staunch support of the most severe forms of abolitionism. However, this is not the most important part of the many revolts’ legacy of influencing Brown.
The specific knowledge John Brown gained from the tactics employed in the Haitian Revolution, and other Caribbean revolts, was of paramount importance when Brown turned his sights to the federal arsenal at Harper’s Ferry, Virginia. As Brown’s cohort Richard Realf explained to a committee of the 36th Congress, “he had posted himself in relation to the wars of Toussaint L’Ouverture… he had become thoroughly acquainted with the wars in Hayti and the islands round about.”[78] By studying the slave revolts of the Caribbean region, Brown learned a great deal about how to properly conduct guerilla warfare. A key element to the prolonged success of this warfare was the establishment of Maroon (people) communities, which are essentially colonies of runaway slaves. As a contemporary article notes, Brown would use these establishments to “retreat from and evade attacks he could not overcome. He would maintain and prolong a guerilla war, of which… Haiti afforded” an example.[79]
The idea of creating Maroon communities was the impetus for the creation of John Brown’s “Provisional Constitution and Ordinances for the People of the United States,” which helped to detail how such communities would be governed. However, the idea of Maroon colonies of slaves is not an idea exclusive to the Caribbean region. In fact, Maroon communities riddled the southern United States between the mid-1600s and 1864, especially the Great Dismal Swamp region of Virginia and North Carolina. Similar to the Haitian Revolution, the Seminole Wars, fought in modern day Florida, saw the involvement of Maroon communities, which although outnumbered by native allies were more effective fighters.[79]
Although the Maroon colonies of North America undoubtedly had an effect on John Brown’s plan, their impact paled in comparison that of the Maroon communities in places like Haiti, Jamaica and Surinam. Accounts by Brown’s friends and cohorts prove this idea. Richard Realf, a cohort of Brown in Kansas, noted that Brown not only studied the slave revolts in the Caribbean, but focused more specifically on the maroons of Jamaica and those involved in Haiti’s liberation.[80] Brown’s friend Richard Hinton similarly noted that Brown knew “by heart,” the occurrences in Jamaica and Haiti.[81] Thomas Wentworth Higginson, a cohort of Brown’s and a member of the Secret Six, stated that Brown’s plan involved getting “together bands and families of fugitive slaves” and “establish them permanently in those [mountain] fastnesses, like the Maroons of Jamaica and Surinam.”[82] Brown had planned for the Maroon colonies established to be “durable,” and thus able to endure over a prolonged period of war.
The similarities between John Brown’s attempted insurrection and the Haitian Revolution, in both methods, motivations and resolve, is still seen today as the main avenue in Haiti’s capital Port-au-Prince is still named for Brown as a sign of solidarity.[83]
Brown was pretty special, wasn't he?
The preceding was BS. There were ZERO zip nada ziltch slave revolts during the Civil War. Seems odd doesn't it?
Today I am again visiting in Central VA, near Appomattox.
Yesterday driving down I-81 near Harrisonburg had a very close encounter with a deer in the road, barely missed the dear but that destroyed my old rear rotors, now I needed a repair shop, quick.
A few phone calls -- who do you recommend? and who do you recommend? -- connected me to a little repair shop in Harrisonburg.
They came out, took care of me right away, did perfect work, and I was back on the road again in just a few hours -- at a reasonable price, and he took my check!
I mention all this just so we're as clear as can be about it: regardless of how faulty some historical "facts" may or may not be, these are great people, and in those new brake rotors, I literally trust them with my life, and the lives of those I'm responsible for.
Think about it... ;-)
Brown was charged not only with treason, but also with multiple counts of first-degree murder, which I think it's pretty hard to claim he didn't commit.
He didn't get what we today would call a fair trial. But there is really no doubt at all that he was guilty as charged. In fact, I believe he admitted as much. He just claimed that he was obeying a higher law, which the law of VA did not recognize.
Depends on how you want to define 'slave revolt'. If we're talking about a Nat Turner, "Let's slaughter all the white folks" rebellion then no, there were none. But there weren't many in the decades prior to the rebellion either. Such uprisings didn't accomplish much and were pretty hard on the slave bystanders as well. But if you're talking about slaves rebelling by voting with their feet then there were hundreds of thousands of 'slave revolts' during the war. If you're talking about slaves becoming fractious then there are also plenty of accounts about slaves becoming "unruly" or "unwilling to accept 'corrections'" (a polite term for whippings) that affected even Jeff Davis and his brother. So slaves appear to have adopted a more non-violent approach to their resistence during the war.
Jeff Davis and other southerners considered the Emancipation Proclamation the most evil deed ever committed because they assumed it would initiate a “servile insurrection” of the Haiti variety.
Yet the slaves chose to do no such thing. Since 90% of the South’s military power was previously engaged, there is very little that could have stopped them had they chosen to massacre white people, at least in the major plantation areas.
But they chose not to, and I think they don’t get nearly enough credit for that choice.
…the Davis slaves made their move, responding not to the immediate presence of the Union army (which was not yet near), but to the signal that (the departure of) Joseph Davis had sent about the shifting balance of power. No sooner had Joseph pushed off from the dock than the remaining slaves seized control of the two plantations, sacking the Hurricane plantation, destroying the cotton, carrying off every article of value, and refusing to work. They would retain control of the plantation, indeed would refuse to be forced off even later by federal troops, seizing a rough and ready freedom while still on their home plantation.By the end of May 1862, Jefferson and Varina Davis received a series of lurid accounts of events on Brierfield plantation. “Negroes at Brierfield…said to be in a state of insubordination,” one telegraph read. Charles Mitchell, a nephew-in-law, was even more blunt, offering Davis an account of his slaves' refusal to work or submit to overseers who were still resident on the plantation, or to any attempt to carry them inland.
The issue became another nightmare for the confederate government, as the planter aristocracy insisted that the army be used to keep control of their unruly slaves. Jefferson Davis' brother used his clout to get the confederates to launch a raid on the Hurricane Plantation. After casualties on both sides, the confederates withdrew, the lieutenant in command reporting that nearly all of the former slaves had "newspapers and guns."
He was certainly an unusual person.
As Fredrick Douglass said, he could live his life to give freedom to the slave, but Brown was more committed, and he would die to give freedom to the slave.
The slave power was basded on the use of force, torture, occasional murder, and other forms of coercion. John Brown recognized that, and was willing to turn those methods against the slave power.
And for that, the slave power supporters will never forgive him. After all, they were special, entitled to use force to support slavery, and noone else was permitted to use their methods against them.
I didn’t know that the Virginia treason statute had a provision about alternative governments in it. I learn something from these threads.
There were slave revolts, in the sense of masses of slaves leaving the place where they were held in bondage. Often that was times with the arrival of US forces.
The slave power worked hard to deny information to slaves on the conduct of the war. That was one reason why Juneteenth is celebrated in Texas: It wasn’t until June of 1865 that slaves in Texas learned of the EP.
And large slave owners got deferments from the pretended laws governing conscription that were illegally passed by the pretended confederacy, so they could keep the slaves under the usual system of coercion.
But I don't recall making such a statement. Can you help me understand why you would send that to me?
But, why did they choose to charge Brown with treason when they could almost certainly hang him for a number of other crimes? One good reason probably concerned the powers of the governor at that time.. As Thomas Jefferson noted in his Notes on the State of Virginia:
"In every case however, except that of high treason, there resides in the governor a power of pardon. In high treason, the pardon can only flow from the general assembly."
One book that I read about Brown suggested that Brown was charged with treason to ensure that Governor Wise could not pardon Brown or commute his inevitable death sentence. Although he probably would not have been inclined to commute the sentence in any event, Governor Wise was planning on seeking the Democratic Party's presidential nomination in 1860 and maybe it was thought that he might try to use a commutation to advance his cause with Democratic delegates in the North. Who knows, but they weren't taking any chances and that's probably why they charged Brown with treason.
On your questions of whether slave labor was more or less expensive than “free” labor — you can be 100 % certain that the relative values of slave versus free labor was fully reflected in the free market prices of slaves.
Throughout its history here slave prices rose steadily and were never higher than in 1860.
This strongly suggests that over time slaves did increasingly valuable work at economical costs, even with increasing slave prices.
Indeed, one certain clue that slavery was becoming “obsolete” would have been steeply falling prices for slaves — but that never happened.
In fact, second only to the value of their lands, slaves were the South’s largest investment, a fact which more than adequately explains their uncompromising response to any suggestions that slavery was wrong and should be restricted or abolished.
This strongly suggests that over time slaves did increasingly valuable work at economical costs, even with increasing slave prices. Indeed, one certain clue that slavery was becoming “obsolete” would have been steeply falling prices for slaves — but that never happened.
Thank you, BroJoeK. I should have been clever enough to wonder about that. The clarity helps!
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.