Could the South Have Won?

NY Books ^ | June 2002 ed. | James M. McPherson

[wardaddy]

Oddly enough, I am not de facto anti-Lincoln, or Grant or that devil Sherman. I am only against Yankee interference into my traditions and heritage under the PC banner.

I am pleased to see you have an issue with the objectivists...there's a silver lining in every cloud..indeed.

[Non-Sequitur]

So what would constitute treason against the United States?

[Aurelius]

"So what would constitute treason against the United States?

That is characterized in Article III, Section 3, Clause 1, of the U. S. Constitution. An act of a citizen of any State which was a member state of the United States at the of his action, against his own and at least one other member State or against one or more member states other than his own, which act met those criteria, would be a treasonous act. An act against a federation of states can only be treason against that federation if it is committed by a citizen of one of the member states of the federation and against at least one state other than his own.

[wardaddy]

I haen't asked for a Golden Age back that I recall. I think your stats are interesting but they do not take into account Population density. Large parts of the South in 1865 were not cultivated for crops....the Mississippi Delta for example which is now arguably the highest priced large plot agro-land in the country....outside of orange groves or tobacco allotment parcels. I would not argue that the wealth in the South was more highly concentrated nor that Slavery was an instituition that deserved to die.

Next time let's do some demographics on Northern Urban demographics....hell, forget the past...let's do one on today's thriving Northern Urban areas. Now who's fault would that be? Have you been to the South Bronx or Bed/Sty or South Chicago lately? How is the South from 150 years ago responsible for that squalor?

[Non-Sequitur]

So was John Brown's actions treason against the United States as well as Virginia or was it just Virginia? Why were his actions treason and Nat Turner's actions just rebellion? Was it because Turner was just on a murder spree and Brown was out to free slaves? If slavery did play a part in determining if it was treason or not, then could Massachusetts or Ohio or some other non-slave state bow out and say that Brown did not commit treason against them? Would that have removed the treason against the United States stigma since some states declared it not to be treason? This whole concept of treason against a particular state is very puzzling.

[wardaddy]

Why did Washington(the government, not the President) send Federal troops to arrest Brown and his gang?...."armed trespassing" perhaps?

[Aurelius]

"Was it because Turner was just on a murder spree and Brown was out to free slaves?"

Everything that I have read about Brown suggests that antislavery was just an excuse for indulging his real love, which was homicide, the more brutal the better.

[wardaddy]

Here's the first link I found on Saint John and his "non-atrocities". You need to find another windmill to battle, Brown ain't worth your's or Mortin's efforts. IMHO.

John Brown and the Pottawatomie Killings

On the night of May 24, 1856, John Brown and his company of Free State volunteers murdered five men settled along the Pottawatomie Creek in southeastern Kansas. The victims were prominently associated with the pro-slavery Law and Order Party, but were not themselves slave owners. This assault occurred three days after Border Ruffians from Missouri burned and pillaged the anti-slavery haven of Lawrence, and two days after Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner was severely beaten by Senator Preston Brooks of South Carolina. The action on the 24th occurred at three different houses:

At the Doyle farm, James and two of his sons, William and Drury, were dragged outside and hacked up with short, heavy sabres donated to Brown in Akron, Ohio. Mrs. Doyle, a daughter, and fourteen year old John were spared. The gang then moved on to Allen Wilkinson's place. He was 'taken prisoner' amid the cries of a sick wife and two children. Two saddles and a rifle were apparently confiscated. The third house visited that night was owned by James Harris. In addition to his wife and young child, Harris had three other men sleeping there. Only one of them, William Sherman, was executed. Weapons, a saddle, and a horse were confiscated from the house. While members of the rifle company, including four of Brown's sons, asserted that their Captain did not commit any of the actual murders himself, he was the undisputed leader and made the decisions as to who should be spared.

The combination of the fall of Lawrence and the Pottawatomie killings caused southeastern Kansas to erupt into guerilla warfare. Raiders from Missouri terrorized the Free Soilers, while roving gangs of Free State volunteers inflicted similar violence upon their pro-slavery neighbors. While neither John Brown nor any members of his company were apprehended for their involvement at Pottawatomie, his two eldest sons-- who were with their own rifle company near Lawrence at the time of the murders-- were seized by mobs and nearly lynched. Jason Brown was released relatively quickly, but John Jr. was imprisoned until September. The recent events had also triggered a temporary insanity, from which he did not recover until after his release.

Most of the books written by members of the abolitionist community in the years after Brown's own execution in 1859 downplayed this stain on the otherwise rich career of their holy warrior.(sound familiar??LOL) James Redpath, the first in a long line of biographers who 'martyred' Brown, denounced the whole episode as a pro-slavery conspiracy to villify both the Hero and the Free Soil cause. The Reverend H.D. Fisher makes mention of the "Pottawatomie Creek disaster", but otherwise extolls the virtues of Brown's selfless crusade for emancipation. An excerpt from Fisher's memoirs, Gun and the Gospel, is not wholly factual but is nevertheless a good example of the type of literature focused on Brown after his death. Brown himself is reputed to have acted evasively whenever asked about the incident, and never admitted his direct responsibility. The Pottawatomie killings remain a gruesome and enigmatic facet of the prelude to War which took place in the Kansas Territory.

[Aurelius]

"This whole concept of treason against a particular state is very puzzling."

I haven't a clue how to try to explain it because it seems perfectly natural to me and I find your puzzlement totally baffling. Prior to Lincoln, the States were sovereign, so why is the concept of treason against them puzzling?

[wardaddy]

Bump....really, it would seem they could find better "heroes" to defend doesn't it? I doubt any of these Brown defenders on this thread are brainwashed public school kids steeped in Afrocentricity.. hence what's their excuse?

[wardaddy]

You're evading Mort. I lived in Manhattan for 7 years.

[wardaddy]

On anothr note...not contentious btw....I was just reading up on Brown. I learned a few oddities I had not known. I knew he had a lot of children but in fact he had 20 between 2 wives. Now that's prolific.

Also, I have always known there were some notables in the USA forces that subdued his activities at Harper's Ferry but I was unware of one militiaman who was there....John Wilkes Booth....learn something everyday here don't we?

[wardaddy]

I disagree, double jeopardy is a pox on us all. By your reasoning, the guillotine was only harmful to those "guilty of crimes"...LOL

[Aurelius]

Re: The murderous pseudo-abolitionist John Brown, may I recommend: "The Secret Six: John Brown and the Abolitionist Movement" by Otto J. Scott. It is available from Amazon.

[wardaddy]

Lynching was not a death penalty...it was murder. Note: See New York Draft Riots.

Lynching was hardly a Southern anomaly.