Harpers Ferry and John Brown insurrection

[MaryL]

A bunch of angry republican whites rebelling against the current political norm...is that what that was?

 

[Pogo]

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.

 

[MaryL]

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.

Never mind the Democrats endorsed and supported slavery. History reminds us of of that...and never mind, for instance black Muslim slavers drove the slave industry for a hundreds of years. Or the fact Islam still Id selling slaves and STILL validates slavery...What would say, the nation of Islam and Lois Farrakhan (or Malcom X) have to say...

 

[Compost]

Yep. John Brown and other abolitionists sought to end slavery because, obviously, slavery is a fucked up thing.

 

[MaryL]

I identify with John Brown. He was called an insurrectionist too.

 

[MaryL]

Yep. John Brown and other abolitionists sought to end slavery because, obviously, slavery is a fucked up thing.

In 1859 Brown was actually fighting racism, but these assholes NOW are deluded self hating assholes. ANTIFA or BLM... they are not fighting anything but shadows and empty allegations.

 

[Compost]

Yep. John Brown and other abolitionists sought to end slavery because, obviously, slavery is a fucked up thing.

In 1859 Brown was actually fighting racism, but these assholes NOW are deluded self hating assholes. ANTIFA or BLM... they are not fighting anything but shadows and empty allegations.

I know.

 

[MaryL]

Yep. John Brown and other abolitionists sought to end slavery because, obviously, slavery is a fucked up thing.

In 1859 Brown was actually fighting racism, but these assholes NOW are deluded self hating assholes. ANTIFA or BLM... they are not fighting anything but shadows and empty allegations.

I know.

Do you?

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

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.

Never mind the Democrats endorsed and supported slavery. History reminds us of of that...and never mind, for instance black Muslim slavers drove the slave industry for a hundreds of years. Or the fact Islam still Id selling slaves and STILL validates slavery...What would say, the nation of Islam and Lois Farrakhan (or Malcom X) have to say...

Never mind that while blacks were enslaving blacks in Africa and selling them off to the colonies, the blacks of Africa were enslaving white people from Europe. What!!! Whites were slaves of Africans? Shocking i tell you...

Whites Were Slaves In North Africa Before Blacks Were Slaves In The New World - PaulCraigRoberts.org

The shocking history of enslavement of 1.5 million white Europeans in North Africa in the 16th century - Face2Face Africa

Research Suggests White Slavery Was Much More Common

Editor's note (3/21/20): For an update on this story, visit: Why is a 16-year-old book on slavery so popular now? A new study suggests that a million or more European Christians were enslaved by Muslims in North Africa between 1530 and 1780 – a far greater number than had ever been...

news.osu.edu

 

[Pogo]

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.

Never mind the Democrats endorsed and supported slavery. History reminds us of of that...and never mind, for instance black Muslim slavers drove the slave industry for a hundreds of years. Or the fact Islam still t this day STILL validates slavery...What would say, the nation of Islam and Lois Farrakhan (or Malcom X) have to say...

I see what you think your trap is. No.

Actually European traders started it ---- Portuguese, Spanish, French and English primarily. By "it" I mean the African transAtlantic variety, as opposed to "slavery in general", which has existed on every continent for millennia. The difference is that traditionally slaves kept in Greece or in Asia or the Americas, or within Africa, were spoils of war along with land and crops. And their captivity was finite and/or could be "worked off" (or liberated in a subsequent war). The European merchants ---- who are the ones who invented racism, be clear about that ---- took the very different approach of transporting captive human cargo across an entire ocean to what may as well have been another planet. Unlike traditional slaves they would have had no familiarity with the land, its flora and fauna, or the language of their captors, plus they would have had no escape from Slavery.

This is where racism begins to be defined, as an excuse for profiting in human trafficking. If you can convince the general public that "these captives we sell are really not human", you can fend off the religious/moral arguments against it. For a while.

Nothing about Slavery was political. It was a social construct used to facilitate profit. With Slavery "approved", you could make tons of money, either on the use of free labor or on the buying and selling of slaves themselves. That went on in (what is now) the United States for exactly 250 years before there even WAS a United States, let alone any political parties. And by the time of your OP event the Democratic Party's position was "popular sovereignty", leaving the decision up to new states as they came in whether they wanted to be free states or slave states. In other words taking no position, which is why they came in dead last in the election of 1860. By then the question had come to a head. Their main opponents, the Whigs, disintegrated at the same time after they too could take no united position on it, even though they (as the Constitutional Union Party) outpolled the hapless Democrats in that election before they disappeared completely.

Not sure where you're going with "Muslims" here but I believe you're the same yahoo who just tried to pass off "Jews" as a race so I sense you're in football terms a few yards short of a first down rhetorically. I do know there were numerous slaves captured from West Africa who were forbidden to practice their Islam.... but that's got nothing to do with Slavery. They were enslaved because they were black, not because they were of one religion or another.

And by the way while all this was going on those same slave traders were bringing captive Africans to the Caribbean (where they started all this), to Central America and to South America, particularly Brazil, which took in many more Africans than North America did ----- and none of them needed or used political parties to do it either.

 

[Compost]

Yep. John Brown and other abolitionists sought to end slavery because, obviously, slavery is a fucked up thing.

In 1859 Brown was actually fighting racism, but these assholes NOW are deluded self hating assholes. ANTIFA or BLM... they are not fighting anything but shadows and empty allegations.

I know.

Do you?

What the fuck does that mean?

 

[rightwinger]

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?

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Yep. John Brown and other abolitionists sought to end slavery because, obviously, slavery is a fucked up thing.

If slavery is a fucked up thing , why is Apple Corp and Nike using China slaves to make their products? My voice alone doesnt do shit, but the more that call about the hypocrisy of those companies and others, might stop the acts of evil towards people...

 

[Compost]

Yep. John Brown and other abolitionists sought to end slavery because, obviously, slavery is a fucked up thing.

If slavery is a fucked up thing , why is Apple Corp and Nike using China slaves to make their products? My voice alone doesnt do shit, but the more that call about the hypocrisy of those companies and others, might stop the acts of evil towards people...

Slavery is a fucked up thing regardless of who is being enslaved. It really shouldn't be that difficult to understand. Just because your little voice isn't that strong doesn't erase the truth of the thing, ya know?

 

[Pogo]

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'.

 

[MaryL]

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'.

Really. Delicious, how democrats er, liberals um "deconstruct" everything but NEVER themselves... never themselves.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Yep. John Brown and other abolitionists sought to end slavery because, obviously, slavery is a fucked up thing.

If slavery is a fucked up thing , why is Apple Corp and Nike using China slaves to make their products? My voice alone doesnt do shit, but the more that call about the hypocrisy of those companies and others, might stop the acts of evil towards people...

Slavery is a fucked up thing regardless of who is being enslaved. It really shouldn't be that difficult to understand. Just because your little voice isn't that strong doesn't erase the truth of the thing, ya know?

Do you own any Apple Corp products or wear Nike items? I dont purchase anything of either..

 

[Pogo]

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'.

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?

 

[Compost]

Yep. John Brown and other abolitionists sought to end slavery because, obviously, slavery is a fucked up thing.

If slavery is a fucked up thing , why is Apple Corp and Nike using China slaves to make their products? My voice alone doesnt do shit, but the more that call about the hypocrisy of those companies and others, might stop the acts of evil towards people...

Slavery is a fucked up thing regardless of who is being enslaved. It really shouldn't be that difficult to understand. Just because your little voice isn't that strong doesn't erase the truth of the thing, ya know?

Do you own any Apple Corp products or wear Nike items? I dont purchase anything of either..

Way to go! You are John Brown!

 

[Votto]

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. 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.

And no, the US did not begin the black slave trade. 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. The difference was, in the US slaves were allowed to have families and reproduce, which then produced more slaves in the US than abroad. 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.