Prelude to the Civil War; Four states mark the 150th anniversary of John Brown’s raid

johnbrownraid.org ^ | March/April 2009 | Theresa Gawlas Medoff

[TexConfederate1861]

No argument there. But in 1861 it was LEGAL and the law of the land. And by our standards today, slavery IS wrong. In that day, there were many who thought differently.

[TexConfederate1861]

Don’t compare the Nazi’s to Southerners. Your ignorance is showing. There were slaves in Northern states as well. I suggest you get an education, because you obviously don’t know your history if you think that war was only about slavery. No. Slavery needed to end, but not at the expense of 180,000 lives.

[freema]

In that day and now, many think differently-that slavery is perpetuated by animals is inhuman, legal or not.

[freema]

HI!

Curiosity killed the cat.

[freema]

I guess one could say Brown was kind of like an abortion clinic bomber with a little more bang.

Just sayin’.

[PurpleMan]

If the shoe fits.

“Slavery needed to end, but not at the expense of 180,000 lives.”

Hmm. Naziism needed to end, but not at the risk of 18,000,000 military deaths and 23,000,000 civilian deaths.

Glad you agree with the rest.

[PurpleMan]

I’m glad you support abortion on demand throughout the whole term since that is the law of the land, too.

[Republic_of_Secession.]

Nice try but Virgina / Tennessee / North Carolina & Arkansas seceded only AFTER & the original states seceded & after hostilities started because they saw North's response as un-constitutional & the Morill Tariff was what spurred the Southern Nationalist movement - without which the CSA wold never have gotten off the ground as the average impoverished Southron would never have defended their country if all that was at stake was slavery especially considering that most Southerners did not own slaves [ only 6 % of the Southern population did as most Southerners were poor ] & that a lot of White Southerners were only a few generations away from being slaves themselves as the first slaves in North America were White. The election of Lincoln was hardy a threat to the slave owners as he had promised not to interfere with slavery having no intention of even doing so. Notice that he passed the so called Emancipation Proclamation only as a war measure late in the game & it only applied to areas he had no control over while he allowed slavery to continue within his own jurisdiction in the North. Lincoln was the far left tyrant of his day who was the precursor to Hitler / Stalin / Mao & Pol Pot.

[Republic_of_Secession.]

Nice try but Virgina / Tennessee / North Carolina & Arkansas seceded only AFTER & the original states seceded & after hostilities started because they saw North's response as un-constitutional & the Morill Tariff was what spurred the Southern Nationalist movement - without which the CSA wold never have gotten off the ground as the average impoverished Southron would never have defended their country if all that was at stake was slavery especially considering that most Southerners did not own slaves [ only 6 % of the Southern population did as most Southerners were poor ] & that a lot of White Southerners were only a few generations away from being slaves themselves as the first slaves in North America were White. The election of Lincoln was hardy a threat to the slave owners as he had promised not to interfere with slavery having no intention of even doing so. Notice that he passed the so called Emancipation Proclamation only as a war measure late in the game & it only applied to areas he had no control over while he allowed slavery to continue within his own jurisdiction in the North. Lincoln was the far left tyrant of his day who was the precursor to Hitler / Stalin / Mao & Pol Pot.

[Republic_of_Secession.]

Nice try but Virgina / Tennessee / North Carolina & Arkansas seceded only AFTER & the original states seceded & after hostilities started because they saw North's response as un-constitutional & the Morill Tariff was what spurred the Southern Nationalist movement - without which the CSA wold never have gotten off the ground as the average impoverished Southron would never have defended their country if all that was at stake was slavery especially considering that most Southerners did not own slaves [ only 6 % of the Southern population did as most Southerners were poor ] & that a lot of White Southerners were only a few generations away from being slaves themselves as the first slaves in North America were White. The election of Lincoln was hardy a threat to the slave owners as he had promised not to interfere with slavery having no intention of even doing so. Notice that he passed the so called Emancipation Proclamation only as a war measure late in the game & it only applied to areas he had no control over while he allowed slavery to continue within his own jurisdiction in the North. Lincoln was the far left tyrant of his day who was the precursor to Hitler / Stalin / Mao & Pol Pot.

[wolfcreek]

Well, Barry does pride his self as being the next *Lincoln*.

He may well being goading us into such actions.

[Non-Sequitur]

Let me begin by pointing out that punctuation is your friend.

Morill Tariff was what spurred the Southern Nationalist movement

The Morill Tariff first was introduced in the spring of 1860, 8 months before Lincoln's election. Why didn't the Southern states secede then?

- without which the CSA wold never have gotten off the ground as the average impoverished Southron would never have defended their country if all that was at stake was slavery especially considering that most Southerners did not own slaves [ only 6 % of the Southern population did as most Southerners were poor ]

It's true only about 6% of all Southerners owned slaves. When I was growing up the family car was in my father's name so one could say that only 20% of the family owned a car. But we all derived benefits from his car ownership. Likewise with slavery. Those slave owners, overwhelmingly, had families. Wives and children who took benefit from the slaves. If you look at the 1860 census data and compare slave owners with the number of families you would find that in some states the percentage of slave-holding families approached 50%. In the original rebelling states close to 40% of all families owned slaves. Many of those who did not took economic benefit from those who did - through doing business with them. So while it is easy for someone like you to question why the South would go to war to defend an institution that only 6% of the population participated in, when you look at the actual statistics it's easier to see why they would go to war to defend an institution that almost half their population directly benefited from.

The election of Lincoln was hardy a threat to the slave owners as he had promised not to interfere with slavery having no intention of even doing so.

Lincoln promised not to interfere with slavery where it currently existed. He was completely opposed to its expansion into the territories, and would have taken all steps possible to ban it. That's what the South found so upsetting.

Notice that he passed the so called Emancipation Proclamation only as a war measure late in the game & it only applied to areas he had no control over while he allowed slavery to continue within his own jurisdiction in the North.

As President of the United States, Lincoln had authority over the whole country - those areas in rebellion as well as those which were not.

Lincoln was the far left tyrant of his day who was the precursor to Hitler / Stalin / Mao & Pol Pot.

Yeah, whatever.

[TexConfederate1861]

I do NOT. But I also don’t believe in MURDERING abortionist doctors, which by YOUR logic should be done.

[TexConfederate1861]

Your ignorance knows no bounds. You must be from New Orleans, because most people that I know from Louisiana are better educated. There was no other recourse than to fight in WWII. Until John Brown, there were other options that were peaceful.

[TexConfederate1861]

AGAIN. You need to go back to school.
And people wonder about our education system...............

[freema]

skool

[fella]

Per #13;

I can make a determination about whether a celebratory remembrance is deserved. It is not.

I must disagree. Our history must be remembered,no matter how befuddling or sordid but the facts should be seen plainly so that we do not repeat the mistakes of our fore-bearers.

[Ditto]

I find it quite odd that Brown was able to contain his anti-slavery passion and refrain from attacks on Union states that still allowed slavery. Some are more equal than others.

When Brown lead his raid, they were all "Union States". It was not until over a year later that secession started.

[PurpleMan]

“There was no other recourse than to fight in WWII.”

Barbara Tuchman Will Durant, you’re not.

Enjoy your living in your ignorant bigotry.

Out.

BTW: Stephen Ambrose? Where did considered home?

[bushfamfan]

And it was still treason against the mother govt. The United States was British citizens and the country was extremely divided with most remaining Loyalists. But it’s funny you find the cause of rebelling against a gov’t ok for taxes but not in the cause of true slavery. Hitler and the Nazis were elected and ruled Germany. It would have been nice to have seen a John Brown rise up there.