Do You Support John Brown's Revolutionary Violence

[jimmy olsen]

The American "Revolution" was no revolution, but a powergrab from an already entrenched elite. It doesn't count. By the same accord, Norway's constitution of May 17th would be a revolution. It wasn't.

The abolitionists did not succeed in a revolution. Lincoln, as far as I can tell was elected. And swamping occupied territory with your own people is hardly revolutionary. In that case, the British, American and French occupation of Germany was "revolutionary". The violence probably wasn't primarily of their making, either, rather by a bunch of Southerners deciding now was an excellent time to revolt. So... the revolution you'd be looking for was in the South.

Now go bother someone else.

Wikipedia lists revolution as A revolution (from the Latin revolutio, "a turn around") is a fundamental change in power or organizational structures that takes place in a relatively short period of time.

Dictionary.reference.com lists it as an overthrow or repudiation and the thorough replacement of an established government or political system by the people governed.
2.
Sociology . a radical and pervasive change in society and the social structure, especially one made suddenly and often accompanied by violence. Compare social evolution.

The American Civil War, much more than the American Revolution, was a revolutionary conflict. The slave society of the south and the plantation aristocracy that controlled it was overthrown with violence and radical changes were enacted. 

[Neil]

The American "Revolution" was no revolution, but a powergrab from an already entrenched elite. It doesn't count. By the same accord, Norway's constitution of May 17th would be a revolution. It wasn't.

The abolitionists did not succeed in a revolution. Lincoln, as far as I can tell was elected. And swamping occupied territory with your own people is hardly revolutionary. In that case, the British, American and French occupation of Germany was "revolutionary". The violence probably wasn't primarily of their making, either, rather by a bunch of Southerners deciding now was an excellent time to revolt. So... the revolution you'd be looking for was in the South.

Now go bother someone else.

Wikipedia lists revolution as A revolution (from the Latin revolutio, "a turn around") is a fundamental change in power or organizational structures that takes place in a relatively short period of time.

Dictionary.reference.com lists it as an overthrow or repudiation and the thorough replacement of an established government or political system by the people governed.
2.
Sociology . a radical and pervasive change in society and the social structure, especially one made suddenly and often accompanied by violence. Compare social evolution.

The American Civil War, much more than the American Revolution, was a revolutionary conflict. The slave society of the south and the plantation aristocracy that controlled it was overthrown with violence and radical changes were enacted.

No, that was a conquest, like when the Soviets conquered Eastern Europe in WWII.

At any rate, the Americans had the advantage of being essentially at war non-stop from the Rebellion until the early 1890s.

[jimmy olsen]

At any rate, the Americans had the advantage of being essentially at war non-stop from the Rebellion until the early 1890s.

Skirmishes with the natives doesn't count as the entire nation being continuously at war.

[Neil]

At any rate, the Americans had the advantage of being essentially at war non-stop from the Rebellion until the early 1890s.

Skirmishes with the natives doesn't count as the entire nation being continuously at war.

Constantly waging an aggressive war wasn't all that big a deal for the Americans at the time, but the US always was able to send their malcontents to a west that, once the genocide was over with, was full of opportunity.

[Norgy]

The American Civil War, much more than the American Revolution, was a revolutionary conflict. The slave society of the south and the plantation aristocracy that controlled it was overthrown with violence and radical changes were enacted.

Sure. Whatever. Show me the cadre of your revolution.

So now the American "Revolution" wasn't a revolutionary conflict, the civil war was? Was WWII the German revolution? The Japanese? Sorry to be such an ass, but, Tim, you are wrong. At least in assuming that by revolt I mean revolution. And by revolution I mean an armed one. Not the peaceful, quiet thorough change experienced in Eastern Europe after 1989.
Rather look at whatever revolutionary organisation 20th century saw that had machine guns and real murderous capability at their disposal. Be it the IRA, the ETA, the Bolsheviks, the Spartacists, the Khmer Rouge, the Viet Minh, the Francoist counter-revolution in Spain, they all saw bloody murder and civil strife. And they all acted in the name of "the people" who ultimately were the ones that suffered.

So no, I don't think revolutionaries do much good.

[Razgovory]

The American "Revolution" was no revolution, but a powergrab from an already entrenched elite. It doesn't count. By the same accord, Norway's constitution of May 17th would be a revolution. It wasn't.

So they founded another Kingdom?

[jimmy olsen]

McPherson, who wrote a pulitzer prize winning history of the war, agrees with me and not you. He even title one of his later books Abraham Lincoln and the Second American Revolution. I'll take his word over yours.

[garbon]

McPherson, who wrote a pulitzer prize winning history of the war, agrees with me and not you. He even title one of his later books Abraham Lincoln and the Second American Revolution. I'll take his word over yours.

Okay.

[Neil]

McPherson, who wrote a pulitzer prize winning history of the war, agrees with me and not you. He even title one of his later books Abraham Lincoln and the Second American Revolution. I'll take his word over yours.

An appeal to authority?

[jimmy olsen]

McPherson, who wrote a pulitzer prize winning history of the war, agrees with me and not you. He even title one of his later books Abraham Lincoln and the Second American Revolution. I'll take his word over yours.

An appeal to authority?

I've never claimed to be above that. 

[Neil]

McPherson, who wrote a pulitzer prize winning history of the war, agrees with me and not you. He even title one of his later books Abraham Lincoln and the Second American Revolution. I'll take his word over yours.

An appeal to authority?

I've never claimed to be above that. 

Well, it'll take more than that to convince people.

[Camerus]

Meh, I'm with Timmay on this one.  To claim that the American Revolution was no true revolution is a significant challenge to the status quo interpretation, and as such requires more evidence than saying simply "it was a power grab from an already entrenched elite" (not that Norgy necessarily gives enough of a shit to do so, mind), especially considering it is usually societal elites who lead a revolution.  The Am Rev was arguably less utopian and radical in scope than, say, the Bolshevik revolution, but I still don't see why it doesn't qualify as a true revolution.

[Barrister]

McPherson, who wrote a pulitzer prize winning history of the war, agrees with me and not you. He even title one of his later books Abraham Lincoln and the Second American Revolution. I'll take his word over yours.

An appeal to authority?

There is nothing wrong with an appeal to authority.  It may not be definitive, but it is persuasive.

[The Brain]

McPherson, who wrote a pulitzer prize winning history of the war, agrees with me and not you. He even title one of his later books Abraham Lincoln and the Second American Revolution. I'll take his word over yours.

[Norgy]

I dug a rather deep, nice hole, didn't I.

I still maintain that violence isn't the answer.