Harpers Ferry and John Brown insurrection

OP
MaryL

MaryL

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2011
Messages
16,767
Reaction score
5,867
Points
350
Location
Midwestern U.S.
Lets talk about John Brown. A white male Christian that fought against that establishment. He advocated violence to fight racism. Real racism not made up BLM George Floyd Breanna Taylor made up racism for political expediency. Nope, REAL racism.
 

Votto

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2012
Messages
27,638
Reaction score
11,283
Points
940
I identify with John Brown. He was called an insurrectionist too.
Indeed, John Brown was an insurrectionist and fought for abolition, which was a political movement at that time. To not call it a political act is denying reality, but I see why the Left does because they don't want to draw any parallels to it to the modern day political insurrectionist.

You have made your point but don't expect the Left to acknowledge it in any way.

The Left has no desire to have any meaningful dialogue such as this. After all, they control academia and the media, so all they have to do is censor people like you and deride them to silence you. I wonder what John Brown would have done about all this control and censorship?
 

Pogo

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
122,646
Reaction score
22,121
Points
2,190
Location
Fennario
A bunch of angry republican whites rebelling against the current political norm...is that what that was?
No.

It was a revolt against the peculiar institution of Slavery, not politics. Brown's plan was to incite a race war in which slaves would revolt en masse, presumably something like Haiti.

If by "republican" you actually mean "Republican" that political party was five years old and existed only in the north and west. Brown's motivation was religious, not political. In fact in the presidential campaign of the next year (1860), the Republican Party distanced itself from Brown's action.

Slavery had had opposition from religious corners as far back as Columbus' chaplain Bartholomé de las Casas. That opposition and controversy had been brewing for decades if not centuries.
Wait.........wut?

Slavery is not about politics? The vast number of men who have walked the earth have been slaves of the state.
Excellent. A poster who can't tell the difference between the literal and the metaphorical. .
This oughta be good. :popcorn:

Slavery is all about politics. Politics is all about forming one group to exercise power over another group. The color of ones skin just so happens to be a great way to create divides in society in order to divide and conquer, which is what politics is all about. In Europe they had trouble with this when it came to Jewish persecution because it was hard to tell Jews apart from the rest of society because they were not of a different color, so they made them wear such things as pointed hats and stars of David, etc.

Slavery and racism have been around since the dawn of man in order for men to oppress and exploit their fellow man. It is human nature, and not just the nature of conservative white men who formed the US. Once again, another myth from the Left.
There's nothing here about either "the Left" or any "conservative white men who formed the US". Those don't even exist, as the white men who formed the US were the Liberals. The Conservatives were the Royalists. They went to Canada, eh?

That history lesson aside, this thread is about John Brown at Harper's Ferry. Not slavery, not Liberalism, not "the Left", not politics.

And no, the US did not begin the black slave trade.
Nobody said it did Evelyn Wood. The US didn't even exist when the African slave trade started. I already pointed that out in detail which apparently sailed right past you. But I tell you what, why don't you just reiterate what I already put down and pretend you thought of it. Ready? aaaand GO.

More slaves were sold to places like South America and Caribbean than in the US. The US only brought in lower than 15% of the slave trade.
Why does that sound so familiar. Can I have my paper back now? Are you done copying?

The difference was, in the US slaves were allowed to have families and reproduce, which then produced more slaves in the US than abroad.
You're trying to tell us slaves were not allowed to have families and reproduce in Brazil? In Haiti? In Colombia? That must have been very expensive, replacing them all with new shipments.

Oh do go on please. I love the sound of digging. :dig:

Ironically, you could say that slaves were treated better in the US than in any other country because they were allowed to have families instead of just being worked to death. But the US is targeted by the Left as the worst nation on earth and the only one that is systemically racist, etc.

The kicker is that there is now more slaves in the world than at any other time in history, yet the Left is far more focused on slavery from the past, with slaves of the past, to score political points by trying to paint their political rivals as racists to gain votes while completely ignoring the real slaves of today that are largely invisible to them. Why? Because seeking to free the modern day slaves has no political upside in terms of getting votes.
I like how you bring it back home to being clueless about the distinction between the literal and the metaphorical PLUS as a bonus track, "the Left". In a history thread about John Brown. Brilliant.

Try reading the thread before you jump both feet into your mouth next time. Free tip.
 

Pogo

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
122,646
Reaction score
22,121
Points
2,190
Location
Fennario
I identify with John Brown. He was called an insurrectionist too.
Indeed, John Brown was an insurrectionist and fought for abolition, which was a political movement at that time. To not call it a political act is denying reality, but I see why the Left does because they don't want to draw any parallels to it to the modern day political insurrectionist.

You have made your point but don't expect the Left to acknowledge it in any way.

The Left has no desire to have any meaningful dialogue such as this. After all, they control academia and the media, so all they have to do is censor people like you and deride them to silence you. I wonder what John Brown would have done about all this control and censorship?
WRONG. Abolition was a moral/religious movement, at that time and for 350 years prior. John Brown was a religiously-driven activist, not a political animal. Although if you insist on finding some you'd find his views staunchly Liberal:

>> Brown said repeatedly that all of his anti-slavery activities, both in Kansas and Harpers Ferry, were in accordance with the Golden Rule.[4][5] He said the most famous sentence in the Declaration of Independenceall men are created equal—"meant the same thing" << (Wiki)​

And once again you're determined to somehow twist a history thread into your own butthurt about "the Left". Go buy a history book.
 
Last edited:
OP
MaryL

MaryL

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2011
Messages
16,767
Reaction score
5,867
Points
350
Location
Midwestern U.S.
A bunch of angry republican whites rebelling against the current political norm...is that what that was?
No.

It was a revolt against the peculiar institution of Slavery, not politics. Brown's plan was to incite a race war in which slaves would revolt en masse, presumably something like Haiti.

If by "republican" you actually mean "Republican" that political party was five years old and existed only in the north and west. Brown's motivation was religious, not political. In fact in the presidential campaign of the next year (1860), the Republican Party distanced itself from Brown's action.

Slavery had had opposition from religious corners Stas far back as Columbus' chaplain Bartholomé de las Casas. That opposition and controversy had been brewing for decades if not centuries.
I agree. John Brown is one of my personal heros. In the current time, I wish democrats looked at history and stopped demonizing the opposition...please?
 

night_son

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2018
Messages
8,278
Reaction score
7,521
Points
2,095
Location
The Full Moon
A bunch of angry republican whites rebelling against the current political norm...is that what that was?

Well, see, the thing is . . . no matter how possibly justified Brown's intentions were—freeing slaves from southern plantations—he made the grave mistake of thinking he could raid a federal armory for weapons to arm a slave army. The first person to die as a result of his raid just happened to be black, so there was that as well. Rumor has it John Brown was quite the fanatic—on the order of any cult leader.

If nothing else John Brown's fate should serve as a prime example of what happens when private citizens attack the U.S. Government. Too bad, in our modern era, domestic terror organizations such as BLM and Antifa get away with "murder" John Brown could have only dreamed of.
 
OP
MaryL

MaryL

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2011
Messages
16,767
Reaction score
5,867
Points
350
Location
Midwestern U.S.
I identify with John Brown. He was called an insurrectionist too.
Are you somehow claiming that a rebellion against slavery is the equivalent to a rebellion to support a failed Presidents lies?
Hard to figure out where she thinks she's going here. She starts out with John Brown/Harper's Ferry and veered off the road into 'politifcal parties' and 'Muslims'. :cuckoo:
Really. Delicious, how democrats er, liberals um "deconstruct" everything but NEVER themselves... never themselves.
And now she's off to "democrats [sic]" and "liberals".

YOUR OWN TOPIC isn't about either "democrats", "Democrats" or "Liberals". It WAS about John Brown at Harper's Ferry. In the History forum. Are you lost?
No, maybe you did. History is a living thing. History isn't in just in books or graveyards.
 

Pogo

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
122,646
Reaction score
22,121
Points
2,190
Location
Fennario
A bunch of angry republican whites rebelling against the current political norm...is that what that was?
No.

It was a revolt against the peculiar institution of Slavery, not politics. Brown's plan was to incite a race war in which slaves would revolt en masse, presumably something like Haiti.

If by "republican" you actually mean "Republican" that political party was five years old and existed only in the north and west. Brown's motivation was religious, not political. In fact in the presidential campaign of the next year (1860), the Republican Party distanced itself from Brown's action.

Slavery had had opposition from religious corners Stas far back as Columbus' chaplain Bartholomé de las Casas. That opposition and controversy had been brewing for decades if not centuries.
I agree. John Brown is one of my personal heros. In the current time, I wish democrats looked at history and stopped demonizing the opposition...please?
Again --- when you write "democrats" do you actually mean "Democrats"? Your keyboard DOES have a shift key. I can see it.

Either way, this has nothing to do with your topic.
 

Votto

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2012
Messages
27,638
Reaction score
11,283
Points
940
I identify with John Brown. He was called an insurrectionist too.
Indeed, John Brown was an insurrectionist and fought for abolition, which was a political movement at that time. To not call it a political act is denying reality, but I see why the Left does because they don't want to draw any parallels to it to the modern day political insurrectionist.

You have made your point but don't expect the Left to acknowledge it in any way.

The Left has no desire to have any meaningful dialogue such as this. After all, they control academia and the media, so all they have to do is censor people like you and deride them to silence you. I wonder what John Brown would have done about all this control and censorship?
WRONG. Abolition was a moral/religious movement, at that time and for 350 years prior. John Brown was a religiously-driven activist, not a political animal. Although if you insist on finding some you'd find his views staunchly Liberal:

>> Brown said repeatedly that all of his anti-slavery activities, both in Kansas and Harpers Ferry, were in accordance with the Golden Rule.[4][5] He said the most famous sentence in the Declaration of Independenceall men are created equal—"meant the same thing" << (Wiki)​

And once again you're determined to somehow twist a history thread into your own butthurt about "the Left". Go buy a history book.
Human beings are all political animals. Both politics and religion are the same in that it involves how people should live their lives. Again, John Brown was a political force as he touched the political nerve of a nation on the verge of Civil War. So you are wrong.

From a Left wing perspective, you believe that society should adopt Left wing ideals, and to fall short in any way is injustice. Your moral arrogance is bolstered by the belief that not believing in God is superior to those that do because God cannot be proven with science and science leads you to all truth.
 

Votto

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2012
Messages
27,638
Reaction score
11,283
Points
940
I identify with John Brown. He was called an insurrectionist too.
Are you somehow claiming that a rebellion against slavery is the equivalent to a rebellion to support a failed Presidents lies?
Hard to figure out where she thinks she's going here. She starts out with John Brown/Harper's Ferry and veered off the road into 'politifcal parties' and 'Muslims'. :cuckoo:
Really. Delicious, how democrats er, liberals um "deconstruct" everything but NEVER themselves... never themselves.
And now she's off to "democrats [sic]" and "liberals".

YOUR OWN TOPIC isn't about either "democrats", "Democrats" or "Liberals". It WAS about John Brown at Harper's Ferry. In the History forum. Are you lost?
No, maybe you did. History is a living thing. History isn't in just in books or graveyards.
History is what Left wing academics tell him it is.


It's all he knows, and all he wants to know.
 

Pogo

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
122,646
Reaction score
22,121
Points
2,190
Location
Fennario
A bunch of angry republican whites rebelling against the current political norm...is that what that was?

Well, see, the thing is . . . no matter how possibly justified Brown's intentions were—freeing slaves from southern plantations—he made the grave mistake of thinking he could raid a federal armory for weapons to arm a slave army. The first person to die as a result of his raid just happened to be black, so there was that as well. Rumor has it John Brown was quite the fanatic—on the order of any cult leader.

If nothing else John Brown's fate should serve as a prime example of what happens when private citizens attack the U.S. Government. Too bad, in our modern era, domestic terror organizations such as BLM and Antifa get away with "murder" John Brown could have only dreamed of.
He was also targeting slaves in the mountains of Virginia and North Carolina. There just weren't many of them in those parts. That's where I live; people were subsistence farmers, not plantation owners.
 

Pogo

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
122,646
Reaction score
22,121
Points
2,190
Location
Fennario
I identify with John Brown. He was called an insurrectionist too.
Indeed, John Brown was an insurrectionist and fought for abolition, which was a political movement at that time. To not call it a political act is denying reality, but I see why the Left does because they don't want to draw any parallels to it to the modern day political insurrectionist.

You have made your point but don't expect the Left to acknowledge it in any way.

The Left has no desire to have any meaningful dialogue such as this. After all, they control academia and the media, so all they have to do is censor people like you and deride them to silence you. I wonder what John Brown would have done about all this control and censorship?
WRONG. Abolition was a moral/religious movement, at that time and for 350 years prior. John Brown was a religiously-driven activist, not a political animal. Although if you insist on finding some you'd find his views staunchly Liberal:

>> Brown said repeatedly that all of his anti-slavery activities, both in Kansas and Harpers Ferry, were in accordance with the Golden Rule.[4][5] He said the most famous sentence in the Declaration of Independenceall men are created equal—"meant the same thing" << (Wiki)​

And once again you're determined to somehow twist a history thread into your own butthurt about "the Left". Go buy a history book.
Human beings are all political animals. Both politics and religion are the same in that it involves how people should live their lives. Again, John Brown was a political force as he touched the political nerve of a nation on the verge of Civil War. So you are wrong.
Now you even copied the word "wrong" from my post.

Brown's event had political ramifications, obviously. But he didn't take his actions out of political fervor, NOR is everything political as you seem to believe. He took his position out of religious belief. So did Bartholomé de las Casas, and I know you know who he was because you copied that whole post of mine. De las Casas didn't have a political basis either. He was a priest.

From a Left wing perspective, you believe that society should adopt Left wing ideals, and to fall short in any way is injustice. Your moral arrogance is bolstered by the belief that not believing in God is superior to those that do because God cannot be proven with science and science leads you to all truth.
Finally you've abandoned copying off my paper and are now just pulling shit out of your ass. NOWHERE here or anywhere else have I posted anything remotely resembling that "society should adopt left wing ideals" or in fact "should adopt" anything, nor have I posted anything about belief/non-belief in God being "superior" to anything else so you're just a goddam liar.

Oh and note to goddam liar --- my perspective isn't "left wing" whatever the fuck that's supposed to mean, it's History. We're in the fucking History forum, Shitforbrains. And NO, Stupid, politics and religion are NOT the same thing at all. What level of Retard School do you go to to come up with that kind of malarkey?
 

night_son

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2018
Messages
8,278
Reaction score
7,521
Points
2,095
Location
The Full Moon
Perhaps my earlier post in this thread was bit hasty. One can admire John Brown and perhaps should. However, John Brown committed his entire existence and that of his sons even to fighting his cause. He took his cause to it farthest limit and did not look back or try to change horses mid-fight. His cause and life and historic actions are very much a cautionary tale or should be for anyone else considering a campaign of direct violence for moral purposes. As an earlier iteration of our government crushed John Brown so will our government of today crush any would be leaders of uprisings. It's a stretch to do so but John Brown could be compared to our Founding Fathers, whom the British very much tried to similarly crush. Some movements gain traction and succeed, others die at the end of a swinging hangman's rope.
 
OP
MaryL

MaryL

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2011
Messages
16,767
Reaction score
5,867
Points
350
Location
Midwestern U.S.
Lets see here, 99% of abolitionist where white Republican Christians fighting slavery. And very few of us wanted or got any profits from slavery.....
 

Pogo

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
122,646
Reaction score
22,121
Points
2,190
Location
Fennario
Lets see here, 99% of abolitionist where white Republican Christians fighting slavery. And very few of us wanted or got any profits from slavery.....
No, they were not. Abolitionists were active long before there were Republicans, including in political parties. One of them, the Free Soil Party, ran Martin van Buren for President in 1848. He's the guy who organized the Democratic Party. You know, the one with a capital D.

But it's instructive that you want to make Abolitionists "99% white Christian", meaning blacks, Jews and the nonreligious just weren't into it at all.
 

Pogo

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
122,646
Reaction score
22,121
Points
2,190
Location
Fennario
Perhaps my earlier post in this thread was bit hasty. One can admire John Brown and perhaps should. However, John Brown committed his entire existence and that of his sons even to fighting his cause. He took his cause to it farthest limit and did not look back or try to change horses mid-fight. His cause and life and historic actions are very much a cautionary tale or should be for anyone else considering a campaign of direct violence for moral purposes. As an earlier iteration of our government crushed John Brown so will our government of today crush any would be leaders of uprisings. It's a stretch to do so but John Brown could be compared to our Founding Fathers, whom the British very much tried to similarly crush. Some movements gain traction and succeed, others die at the end of a swinging hangman's rope.
Brown was in fact the first person to be executed for treason in the United States (against the Commonwealth of Virginia).
 

night_son

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2018
Messages
8,278
Reaction score
7,521
Points
2,095
Location
The Full Moon
Lets see here, 99% of abolitionist where white Republican Christians fighting slavery. And very few of us wanted or got any profits from slavery.....
Modern democrats from elected officials to everyday voters brainwashed by propaganda to lunatic intelligentsia will NEVER acknowledge their party's racist, slave owning heritage; not gonna happen. You are still trying to hold rational dialogue with people (democrats) who only want to silence and destroy us.
 

Votto

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2012
Messages
27,638
Reaction score
11,283
Points
940
I identify with John Brown. He was called an insurrectionist too.
Indeed, John Brown was an insurrectionist and fought for abolition, which was a political movement at that time. To not call it a political act is denying reality, but I see why the Left does because they don't want to draw any parallels to it to the modern day political insurrectionist.

You have made your point but don't expect the Left to acknowledge it in any way.

The Left has no desire to have any meaningful dialogue such as this. After all, they control academia and the media, so all they have to do is censor people like you and deride them to silence you. I wonder what John Brown would have done about all this control and censorship?
WRONG. Abolition was a moral/religious movement, at that time and for 350 years prior. John Brown was a religiously-driven activist, not a political animal. Although if you insist on finding some you'd find his views staunchly Liberal:

>> Brown said repeatedly that all of his anti-slavery activities, both in Kansas and Harpers Ferry, were in accordance with the Golden Rule.[4][5] He said the most famous sentence in the Declaration of Independenceall men are created equal—"meant the same thing" << (Wiki)​

And once again you're determined to somehow twist a history thread into your own butthurt about "the Left". Go buy a history book.
Human beings are all political animals. Both politics and religion are the same in that it involves how people should live their lives. Again, John Brown was a political force as he touched the political nerve of a nation on the verge of Civil War. So you are wrong.
Now you even copied the word "wrong" from my post.

Brown's event had political ramifications, obviously. But he didn't take his actions out of political fervor, NOR is everything political as you seem to believe. He took his position out of religious belief. So did Bartholomé de las Casas, and I know you know who he was because you copied that whole post of mine. De las Casas didn't have a political basis either. He was a priest.

From a Left wing perspective, you believe that society should adopt Left wing ideals, and to fall short in any way is injustice. Your moral arrogance is bolstered by the belief that not believing in God is superior to those that do because God cannot be proven with science and science leads you to all truth.
Finally you've abandoned copying off my paper and are now just pulling shit out of your ass. NOWHERE here or anywhere else have I posted anything remotely resembling that "society should adopt left wing ideals" or in fact "should adopt" anything, nor have I posted anything about belief/non-belief in God being "superior" to anything else so you're just a goddam liar.

Oh and note to goddam liar --- my perspective isn't "left wing" whatever the fuck that's supposed to mean, it's History. We're in the fucking History forum, Shitforbrains. And NO, Stupid, politics and religion are NOT the same thing at all. What level of Retard School do you go to to come up with that kind of malarkey?
Politics is in everything because people are political creatures. You can nit pick as to what degree politics effects us but to not understand this is to not understand human nature. The Catholic church is full of such politics and even dictated to world empires at one time. Sure, they are not the political power they used to be but they still play politics by doing such things as the Pope giving sermons on the evils of building walls, a clear shot at Trump, and not saying much at all about abortion even though abortion by Catholic official teaching is mass genocide because it is not politically expedient in the Left wing political world wide culture.

But the Catholic church failed to publicly condemn the Holocaust as well. Why? Politics. They knew if they did they would lose their precious Vatican empire as well as their very lives.

And if you vote, or involve yourself at all politically, you are trying to impose your worldview on others.

It's just that simple but you are too arrogant to admit it.
 

Pogo

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
122,646
Reaction score
22,121
Points
2,190
Location
Fennario
Lets see here, 99% of abolitionist where white Republican Christians fighting slavery. And very few of us wanted or got any profits from slavery.....
Modern democrats from elected officials to everyday voters brainwashed by propaganda to lunatic intelligentsia will NEVER acknowledge their party's racist, slave owning heritage; not gonna happen. You are still trying to hold rational dialogue with people (democrats) who only want to silence and destroy us.
Another poster without a shift key. Presumably when you write "democrats" you actually mean "Democrats'. They are two different words.

The fact remains, nobody anywhere ever needed a political party to own or trade in slaves, and that was going on for over three hundred years before "Democrats" existed. Slavery was not a political product; it was a commercial (waste) product. But we already did this.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top