Do You Support John Brown's Revolutionary Violence

[Valmy]

You reason, you persuade.

How exactly do you persuade people to give up an unjust system their entire economy is based on?  'Go broke FOR JUSTICE!'

Yeah....

[Admiral Yi]

How exactly do you persuade people to give up an unjust system their entire economy is based on?  'Go broke FOR JUSTICE!'

Yeah....

How do you persuade an entire gender to give up their monopoly on political power?

[Valmy]

How do you persuade an entire gender to give up their monopoly on political power?

By launching a major political movement.

Of course a major abolitionist political position in the South would...or rather was...continously and violently suppressed.

Besides the women were the wives and mothers and close relations of the men.  The slaves were the property of the masters.  That sort of makes it more difficult to make your case when people judge you as sub-human.

[Camerus]

Generally have zero tolerance for violence within a democracy, although where a segment of the population not just has no voice, but is literally enslaved and kept in bondage through brute force, then violence is a legitimate tool to end that exploitative system.  Whether John Brown's actions made sense in the grand strategic scheme of things is another question, although they arguably did.

[Oexmelin]

You reason, you persuade.

Yet, it seems you were against most form of political inconvenience - in other words, allowing people to go their merry way without ever being confronted to unpleasant truths.

And when it doesn't work? This was that the exact same argument - as Mihali suggested - that was raised against Saddam - and I vaguely remember you raising it - that reasoning and persuading Saddam didn't work.

And then, how do you reason and persuade with the emerging nasty regimes, when you do not have the benefit of hindsight and do not know they'll turn into horrible dictatorships?

Or, how do you reform democratic regimes that inherit horribly unfair situations, such as monarchical France, or Haiti, where land, power, money, influence remains concentrated in the hands of a few, and where even universal sufferage is unlikely to obtain land reforms and the like?

[Admiral Yi]

Yet, it seems you were against most form of political inconvenience - in other words, allowing people to go their merry way without ever being confronted to unpleasant truths.

And when it doesn't work? This was that the exact same argument - as Mihali suggested - that was raised against Saddam - and I vaguely remember you raising it - that reasoning and persuading Saddam didn't work.

And then, how do you reason and persuade with the emerging nasty regimes, when you do not have the benefit of hindsight and do not know they'll turn into horrible dictatorships?

Or, how do you reform democratic regimes that inherit horribly unfair situations, such as monarchical France, or Haiti, where land, power, money, influence remains concentrated in the hands of a few, and where even universal sufferage is unlikely to obtain land reforms and the like?

Apart from the first sentence, which seems to be a rather ridiculous characterization of my stated position on political protests, I don't really understand your post.  What does Saddam have to do with anything?

[Barrister]

How far does this extend? Would you have also opposed a slave revolt?

Good question.  I have no quick answer.  At least not one that's consistent with my first post.

My own answer - zero tolerance for political violence in a democracy amongst those who have the ability to participate in that democracy.

If one has no other option, then yes, violence becomes acceptable.  But when one does have that democratic option, then no, violence is no longer acceptable.

[Ideologue]

How far does this extend? Would you have also opposed a slave revolt?

Good question.  I have no quick answer.  At least not one that's consistent with my first post.

My own answer - zero tolerance for political violence in a democracy amongst those who have the ability to participate in that democracy.

If one has no other option, then yes, violence becomes acceptable.  But when one does have that democratic option, then no, violence is no longer acceptable.

So, if a slave picked up a gun and shot his owner, that's okay.

But if John Brown picked up a gun and shot the same slaveowner, that's bad.

And I really don't see why people are characterizing the United States of America of the time period as a democracy.

How do you persuade an entire gender to give up their monopoly on political power?

This would actually make a nearer-run question for me, although I'm pretty sure I could justify suffragettes and supporters in armed violence.  Again, it's not democracy if 51% of the adult population doesn't get to participate.  It's an oligarchy, an exceptionally broad one, but oligarchies are acceptable targets of political violence.

[Ideologue]

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

[Barrister]

So, if a slave picked up a gun and shot his owner, that's okay.

But if John Brown picked up a gun and shot the same slaveowner, that's bad.

You got it.  It's all about having options - or not.  Surely you must have the defence of necessity in South Carolina.

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

[Oexmelin]

Apart from the first sentence, which seems to be a rather ridiculous characterization of my stated position on political protests, I don't really understand your post.  What does Saddam have to do with anything?

While I pushed a bit far your stated position, it did sound ultimately to me as you supported protest as long as it had no discernable impact. So, I am trying to find the limits of your persuading.

What would be the situation when you feel persuading doesn't work? i.e., political activism does nothing.
What would be the situation when you feel persuading is morally wrong? i.e., people are suffering and all you do is talk
What would be the situation when you feel persuading is faced with such strong forces that it is not liable to produce any result.

The various examples I gave were simply to underline the fact that, as civic actors, we do not have the benefit of hindsight over what the ultimate results would be. In other words, at various times, people engaged in violence in what might have seemed to them democratic, or "rule of law" types of regimes without knowing that such regimes were ultimately set on the path of dictatorship or even, say, greater freedoms. 

[Ideologue]

So, if a slave picked up a gun and shot his owner, that's okay.

But if John Brown picked up a gun and shot the same slaveowner, that's bad.

You got it.  It's all about having options - or not.  Surely you must have the defence of necessity in South Carolina.

Yes, we also have the justification of defense of others, which surely you must have in Canada?

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

Well, fair enough.  I mainly meant Yi, my Tory friend.   I'm pretty sure Ank is a Loyalist out of time as well.  (And from a practical standpoint, an Anglophone union would be pretty cool.)

[Viking]

No I do not support John Brown's revolutionary violence. If anything it prevented peaceful abolition as had happened in most other western countries.

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.

[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?

[OttoVonBismarck]

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.