Do You Support John Brown's Revolutionary Violence

[Neil]

Actually, I'd be interested in hearing the people who condemn Brown try to justify the American Revolution.

No shit.  Anyone who tries to justify the American Rebellion is an ass.

[Tonitrus]

I would consider 1859 America a Democracy. A modern Democracy? No. But it wasn't the modern era, it was 1859. By any normal standard of categorizing governments "democratic Republic" is the most mainstream term that would fit with 1859 America. Politicians were very susceptible to the vagaries of public opinion, elections in which many persons participated genuinely elected leaders and etc.

An oligarchy is a lot different, so to say that an oligarchy and a Democracy with a restrictive franchise are the same thing isn't really true.

That being said it matters not the type of government, slaves have an absolute right to rebellion, period. No slave does wrong when they kill in order to end their enslavement, further, no man does wrong when he kills a slave owner or a protector of slave owners. Those who take and keep slaves are "enemies of mankind" (Hostis humani generis) and in the absence of government that addresses this the ancient and natural laws take over and individuals have a right to use violence and homicide to stop evil actions.

Now, where I get off the train is John Brown's raid was insanely stupid. No rational actor would have believed it had any chance for success, further, it had virtually no chance of even starting a proper slave rebellion. Further still, John Brown basically killed a few innocent people in a small town in Virginia that was not a major plantation area, the people killed by John Brown were townsfolk, not plantation owners. One of the people killed in the raid was just a train baggage handler passing through. They also killed one of the marines that stormed "the fort", but that's sort of the name of the game in that regard. Nat Turner lead a slave revolt, Spartacus lead a slave revolt, John Brown just murdered a few random people and then got his followers killed or executed in short order.

Weren't you lauding George Washington in the Overrated Presidents thread?  Now he is an "enemy of mankind"?

[Viking]

Democracies do make wrong choices but the most important choice is always to maintain the system. You never know when might might not favor right.

Okay, do you people just define democracy as any system which has elections?

No, it is a system where the will of majority writes laws and the rights of the minority are protected.

[Ideologue]

I would consider 1859 America a Democracy. A modern Democracy? No. But it wasn't the modern era, it was 1859. By any normal standard of categorizing governments "democratic Republic" is the most mainstream term that would fit with 1859 America. Politicians were very susceptible to the vagaries of public opinion, elections in which many persons participated genuinely elected leaders and etc.

An oligarchy is a lot different, so to say that an oligarchy and a Democracy with a restrictive franchise are the same thing isn't really true.

Okay, I could argue the oligarchy vs. democracy thing (the rule of few would seem to apply to a state which grants representation to such a small, if significant, fraction of its total native-born population).  But, it's a pretty tangential, semantic argument that I doubt either of us would see much profit in...

See, my main problem is that folks seem to be using "democracy" to mean a "system of government which you cannot justifiably rebel against," which is pretty circular when the argument is "you cannot justifiably rebel against a democracy."  I'm basically willing to accept, for discussion purposes, a definition of democracy that encompasses the pre-suffrage United States.  However, when you extend the definition to that point, you're lumping in radically different types of government, types of government to which the underlying reasons people would condemn a rebellion against a democratic state do not apply.

Like, what are the reasons which make such a rebellion unjustifiable?  Representation?  Judicial process?  Guardianship of human rights?  Those are largely absent when discussing mid-1800s America, at least in the context of slaves, so I don't see that line of reasoning as being tenable.

Btw, I like the hostis humanis generis characterization of slavers.

No, it is a system where the will of majority writes laws and the rights of the minority are protected.

Yeah.  This is what I meant.  Viking, the majority did not write laws in 1859, nor--obviously--did the U.S. protect the rights of its African minority.

[jimmy olsen]

But then, slavery is used to beg the question: what do you do when law and order support an unjust regime, even if a democracy? You wait?

You reason, you persuade.

We ended up having to persuade with 2 million bayonets.

[jimmy olsen]

Democracies do make wrong choices but the most important choice is always to maintain the system. You never know when might might not favor right.

Okay, do you people just define democracy as any system which has elections?

I would say that once the majority of states had done away with property requirements and enacted universal white male suffrage the electorate was sufficiently broad to be termed a democratic republic.

[Ideologue]

Democracies do make wrong choices but the most important choice is always to maintain the system. You never know when might might not favor right.

Okay, do you people just define democracy as any system which has elections?

I would say that once the majority of states had done away with property requirements and enacted universal white male suffrage the electorate was sufficiently broad to be termed a democratic republic.

Why do you hate women and black people, Tim?  Did a black woman break your heart?

Anyway, I think the proper definition of democracy is one which permits every adult citizen to vote (and also, of course, which has a just citizenship regime), with the possible exception of people who have lost their suffrage through proper judicial process (I am emphatically opposed to stripping ex-convicts of rights, especially suffrage, but am not willing, at the moment, to declare the United States undemocratic based on the disenfranchisement of such a small fragment of our citizen population).

[jimmy olsen]

Why do you hate women and black people, Tim?  Did a black woman break your heart?

Nothing against black people, but once the electorate encompasses more than a third of the adult population that can be called a democratic republic in my opinion.  It's just too broad to be termed an oligarchy.

[Ideologue]

Why do you hate women and black people, Tim?  Did a black woman break your heart?

Nothing against black people, but once the electorate encompasses more than a third of the adult population that can be called a democratic republic in my opinion.  It's just too broad to be termed an oligarchy.

Quick question: which is more undemocratic, disenfranchising an entire (or near-entire) race or gender or disenfranchising poor people of any race or gender.  Don't wait for the translation, answer now.

[Ideologue]

Nothing against black people

Hey, wait a minute, what about women?

[jimmy olsen]

Why do you hate women and black people, Tim?  Did a black woman break your heart?

Nothing against black people, but once the electorate encompasses more than a third of the adult population that can be called a democratic republic in my opinion.  It's just too broad to be termed an oligarchy.

Quick question: which is more undemocratic, disenfranchising an entire (or near-entire) race or gender or disenfranchising poor people of any race or gender.  Don't wait for the translation, answer now.

I would say that it depends on the demographics of the society. Whichever there was more of, disenfranchising them would be more undemocratic.

Nothing against women either, ass.

Anyways, can't we get back on topic?

[The Brain]

Don't know what John Brown did.

[jimmy olsen]

I'm not thriled with your editorializing of the options - but no, I do not support the revolutionary violence.
It has nothing to do with liking slavery, but liking rule of law and order.

What worth is order if the law it upholds is one of savagery and oppression?

North Korea is a nation of law and order yet no one would argue that opposing that state with violence is immoral.

As for Democracy Yi, the fact that the government is democratic does not make its laws just. If there are elections in Egypt and the majority vote to put the Copts in camps, surely they and any willing to aid them would be justified to resist with violence.

[Admiral Yi]

Y'all are right.  I withdraw my statement.

[Ideologue]

USA! USA!