Languish.org

Since John Brown has come up in the Oslo thread, and it's the 150 anniversary of the Civil War I think this is an appropriate question to ask.

EDIT: Dammit - Spelled Indecisive wrong. <_<
Can you fix that Neil?

Not.  Zero tolerance for political violence in a democracy.

I don't support Mike Brown.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 25, 2011, 08:11:40 PM
Not.  Zero tolerance for political violence in a democracy.

This.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 25, 2011, 08:11:40 PM
Not.  Zero tolerance for political violence in a democracy.

Then vote no.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 25, 2011, 08:11:40 PM
Not.  Zero tolerance for political violence in a democracy.

He was acting on behalf on the portion of the US that did not live in a democracy and in fact was literally enslaved by that democracy.  My answer is yes.  Considering the support the modern US has given to political violence in "democracies" (both with and without scare quotes), it has become the status quo.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 25, 2011, 08:11:40 PM
Not.  Zero tolerance for political violence in a democracy.

Irrelevant.  1859 America was not a democracy.

Anyway, voted yes, enslavement is an evil that justifies and encourages any method of destroying it, and makes any aspect of its system a valid target.  Only practical concerns even dictate permitting surrender instead of extermination; no moral ones do.

Ide is kind of weird.

Thanks Neil! :hug:

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 25, 2011, 08:11:40 PM
Not.  Zero tolerance for political violence in a democracy.

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

Quote from: Faeelin on July 25, 2011, 08:56:45 PM
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.

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.

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?

Quote from: Oexmelin on July 25, 2011, 09:26:31 PM
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.

Quote from: AnchorClanker on July 25, 2011, 09:25:11 PM
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.

So laws should be supported even when they define people as property?  Tyranny is just so long as 51% of the population are fine with it?

Well actually sometimes it was less than 50%.  A few of the SOuthern States the majority of the male population were slaves.

But ok I guess it is Democratic and just so long as the laws say what minority gets to call all the shots.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 25, 2011, 09:44:03 PM
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....

Quote from: Valmy on July 25, 2011, 09:46:15 PM
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?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 25, 2011, 09:47:38 PM
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.

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.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 25, 2011, 09:44:03 PM
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?

Quote from: Oexmelin on July 25, 2011, 09:55:07 PM
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?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 25, 2011, 09:08:06 PM

Quote from: Faeelin on July 25, 2011, 08:56:45 PM
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.

Quote from: Barrister on July 25, 2011, 10:06:36 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 25, 2011, 09:08:06 PM

Quote from: Faeelin on July 25, 2011, 08:56:45 PM
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.

Quote from: Admiral YiHow 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.

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

Quote from: IdeologueSo, 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.

Quote from: Ideologue on July 25, 2011, 10:20:10 PM
Actually, I'd be interested in hearing the people who condemn Brown try to justify the American Revolution.

:shifty:

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 25, 2011, 10:00:18 PMApart 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. 

Quote from: Barrister on July 25, 2011, 10:24:57 PM

Quote from: IdeologueSo, 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? ;)

Quote

Quote from: Ideologue on July 25, 2011, 10:20:10 PM
Actually, I'd be interested in hearing the people who condemn Brown try to justify the American Revolution.

:shifty:

Well, fair enough.  I mainly meant Yi, my Tory friend. :P  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.)

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.

Quote from: Viking on July 25, 2011, 10:34:04 PMDemocracies 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 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.

Quote from: Ideologue on July 25, 2011, 10:20:10 PM
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.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 25, 2011, 10:40:09 PM
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"?

Quote from: Ideologue on July 25, 2011, 10:38:15 PM

Quote from: Viking on July 25, 2011, 10:34:04 PMDemocracies 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.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 25, 2011, 10:40:09 PM
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.

Quote from: VikingNo, 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.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 25, 2011, 09:44:03 PM

Quote from: Oexmelin on July 25, 2011, 09:26:31 PM
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.

Quote from: Ideologue on July 25, 2011, 10:38:15 PM

Quote from: Viking on July 25, 2011, 10:34:04 PMDemocracies 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.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 25, 2011, 11:22:51 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on July 25, 2011, 10:38:15 PM

Quote from: Viking on July 25, 2011, 10:34:04 PMDemocracies 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? :console:

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).

Quote from: Ideologue on July 25, 2011, 11:27:46 PM

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

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.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 25, 2011, 11:36:24 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on July 25, 2011, 11:27:46 PM

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

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.

Quote from: Jimmy OlsenNothing against black people

Hey, wait a minute, what about women? :lol:

Quote from: Ideologue on July 25, 2011, 11:42:16 PM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 25, 2011, 11:36:24 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on July 25, 2011, 11:27:46 PM

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

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. :P

Anyways, can't we get back on topic?

Don't know what John Brown did.

Quote from: AnchorClanker on July 25, 2011, 09:25:11 PM
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.

Y'all are right.  I withdraw my statement.

USA! USA!

Quote from: The Brain on July 26, 2011, 12:57:33 AM
Don't know what John Brown did.

His body lies smoldering in his grave. And he was portrayed by Johnny Cash in North & South. The tv show, not the Infogrames game.

Quote from: Syt on July 26, 2011, 01:43:50 AM

Quote from: The Brain on July 26, 2011, 12:57:33 AM
Don't know what John Brown did.

His body lies smoldering in his grave. And he was portrayed by Johnny Cash in North & South. The tv show, not the Infogrames game.

:punk:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSSn3NddwFQ

I made a bunch of posts, but then noted that a number of people made the same points already so deleted them. Agree with Ide and Mihali. Also agree with OvB about his characterization of slavery as a crime against natural law and thus trumping any formal laws any regime may put in place.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 26, 2011, 02:00:28 AM

Quote from: Syt on July 26, 2011, 01:43:50 AM

Quote from: The Brain on July 26, 2011, 12:57:33 AM
Don't know what John Brown did.

His body lies smoldering in his grave. And he was portrayed by Johnny Cash in North & South. The tv show, not the Infogrames game.

:punk:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSSn3NddwFQ

Nice eagle.

Quote from: Martinus on July 26, 2011, 02:06:29 AM
I made a bunch of posts, but then noted that a number of people made the same points already so deleted them. Agree with Ide and Mihali. Also agree with OvB about his characterization of slavery as a crime against natural law and thus trumping any formal laws any regime may put in place.

Are you sure you want to support the idea of natural law? As a gay man?

Didn't John Brown have a vote btw? Drawn to the logical extreme if you are dictator in a country with unjust laws you should start killing people instead of changing the laws. Interesting idea.

Quote from: The Brain on July 26, 2011, 02:18:42 AM
Didn't John Brown have a vote btw? Drawn to the logical extreme if you are dictator in a country with unjust laws you should start killing people instead of changing the laws. Interesting idea.

Stalin was only trying to make his voice heard. :(

Quote from: Ideologue on July 25, 2011, 10:20:10 PM
Actually, I'd be interested in hearing the people who condemn Brown try to justify the American Revolution.

The American revolutionaries were correct that their ancient liberties were being infringed, at which point it becomes acceptable to protect those liberties. It was the Crown that was engaged in revolutionary violence. The situation escalated from there.

Oh, and John Brown was wrong to go on his murderous rampage.

Quote from: Ideologue on July 25, 2011, 10:20:10 PM
Actually, I'd be interested in hearing the people who condemn Brown try to justify the American Revolution.

Hmm.  I must have missed history class the day the teacher talked about the times that Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson went through small towns in Britian murdering civilians.

Quote from: dps on July 26, 2011, 03:09:41 AM

Quote from: Ideologue on July 25, 2011, 10:20:10 PM
Actually, I'd be interested in hearing the people who condemn Brown try to justify the American Revolution.

Hmm.  I must have missed history class the day the teacher talked about the times that Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson went through small towns in Britian murdering civilians.

The point is not the targeting of civilians, but rather whether the government (or governments, specifically those of Virginia and other southern states) could be legitimately targeted.

We can argue tactics all night long.  Like OvB, I believe Brown's plan, such as it was, was fundamentally flawed.  It was essentially Underpants Gnome warfare.

And some people don't believe in collective responsibility, which is a reasonable conclusion, although I don't share it.  On the other hand, targeting slaveowners themselves and armed partisans is hardly "collective," is it?  And even then, you cannot realistically state that Virginian civilians would have remained noncombatant in the face of slave uprising.

Quote from: The Brain on July 26, 2011, 02:15:24 AM

Quote from: Martinus on July 26, 2011, 02:06:29 AM
I made a bunch of posts, but then noted that a number of people made the same points already so deleted them. Agree with Ide and Mihali. Also agree with OvB about his characterization of slavery as a crime against natural law and thus trumping any formal laws any regime may put in place.

Are you sure you want to support the idea of natural law? As a gay man?

It's one of these cases where I believe the expression means something else than everyone else. :P

But seriously, the concept of natural law (ius gentium) is an old one and only recently has been used to attack gays. It also does not mean "law of nature".

Quote from: Ideologue on July 26, 2011, 02:33:29 AM

Quote from: The Brain on July 26, 2011, 02:18:42 AM
Didn't John Brown have a vote btw? Drawn to the logical extreme if you are dictator in a country with unjust laws you should start killing people instead of changing the laws. Interesting idea.

Stalin was only trying to make his voice heard. :(

Stalin's Russia was a one man-one vote democracy. Stalin was the man and and he had the vote.*

*Shamelessly stolen from Terry Pratchett. :P

No.

While slavery is an abomination, the methods he used were unacceptable.

Quote from: Slargos on July 26, 2011, 04:50:46 AM
No.

While slavery is an abomination, the methods he used were unacceptable.

If use of violence is not allowed in defense of life and freedom of a human being, then when is it allowed?

Quote from: Martinus on July 26, 2011, 06:25:18 AM

Quote from: Slargos on July 26, 2011, 04:50:46 AM
No.

While slavery is an abomination, the methods he used were unacceptable.

If use of violence is not allowed in defense of life and freedom of a human being, then when is it allowed?

Oh, we're talking about white slavery?

Well that's an entirely different question.

Wish you would've said so to begin with.

Then, yes. Obviously.

Boo. Hiss.

'Natural laws'?  Puh-leeze.  :rolleyes:

Quote from: Martinus on July 26, 2011, 03:50:06 AM
But seriously, the concept of natural law (ius gentium) is an old one and only recently has been used to attack gays. It also does not mean "law of nature".

Yes and yes.

What Yi said (before he pussed out-- or didn't?).  Anyway, I've posted Hawthorne's take on John Brown a million times here, but it bears repeating:

Quote"Nobody was ever more justly hanged."

Quote from: derspiess on July 26, 2011, 09:45:37 AM
What Yi said (before he pussed out-- or didn't?).  Anyway, I've posted Hawthorne's take on John Brown a million times here, but it bears repeating:

Quote"Nobody was ever more justly hanged."

Wow that is one ridiculous sentence.  I appreciate you pointing out what a lazy thinker Hawthorne was but why else does that bear repeating?

The problem with John Brown is not that, in the abstract, violence isn't ever an appropriate response to the evils of slavery.

The problem with John Brown is that the particular forms his violence took (the Potawottamie massacre, the raid on Harper's Ferry) were totally non-productive of a solution to the problem of slavery - except insofar as they raised communal tensions leading to the Civil War.

It is sort of like as if, in the run-up to WW2, I heard about the Nazi persecution of Jews, and being enraged, I hacked some German-American Bund members to death in a frenzy, and then attempted to arm Berlin shopkeeps with pikes to use against the Gestapo. Sure, violence may be an appropriate response to Nazis, but ... 

Quote from: Valmy on July 26, 2011, 02:54:09 PM
Wow that is one ridiculous sentence.  I appreciate you pointing out what a lazy thinker Hawthorne was but why else does that bear repeating?

Because he was right.  Brown was a murderer & a traitor.  Yeah, he was an abolitionist, but so what?  An abolitionist psychopath is still a psychopath.

Anyway, John Brown's hanging was the best thing that could happen to him as far as his legacy was concerned-- Hawthorne pointed that out, as well.

Quote from: Malthus on July 26, 2011, 03:25:13 PM
The problem with John Brown is not that, in the abstract, violence isn't ever an appropriate response to the evils of slavery.

The problem with John Brown is that the particular forms his violence took (the Potawottamie massacre, the raid on Harper's Ferry) were totally non-productive of a solution to the problem of slavery - except insofar as they raised communal tensions leading to the Civil War.

It is sort of like as if, in the run-up to WW2, I heard about the Nazi persecution of Jews, and being enraged, I hacked some German-American Bund members to death in a frenzy, and then attempted to arm Berlin shopkeeps with pikes to use against the Gestapo. Sure, violence may be an appropriate response to Nazis, but ...

He didn't hack people up in a foreign country, he hacked people (partians) up in Kansas, a United States territory.

I don't think the analogy works; it would be like murdering low-level SA goons.  Which I think we can all agree would be great.

Parthians in bleeding Kansas? Get real, Queeg.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 25, 2011, 10:40:09 PM
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.\

That is a pretty strong natural law position to take.

The problem that John Brown faces it seems to me is that he is a citizen of a republic whose basic law recognizes the right to enslave human beings, so that he cannot with any consistency claim the rights and protections of citizenship while at the same time rejecting the legitimacy of some of its basic laws.  Moreover, I don't think the problem can be solved by placing the slaveholders alone in the position of "hostis humani generis" while characterizing the government as a purely passive actor.  This was the age of the Fugitive Slave Act and Dred Scott - the general government is an active enforcer of slavery, and thus the entire political community is complicit.  So as I see it, Brown has one of two choices -- either (1) accept the basic legitimacy of the political community in which he lives and limit himself to those avenues of the protest that the community permits, or (2) reject the legitimacy of the polity and become literally an "outlaw".  In choosing the latter, he justifiably could seek recourse to violence to counter violence, but at the same time could not be heard to complain if the political community then exacted the penalty for outlawry.  Put simply, Brown had justification to foment an armed slave rebellion and the state had justification to hang him for it.

The analysis is purely positivist (and as such not very helpful) and misses the point of morality.

From the position of "right", the church had a right to burn Giordano Bruno, the Spanish government had a right to torture false Jewish converts, etc. This is not a very useful position to take.

Quote from: Martinus on July 26, 2011, 05:29:30 PM
The analysis is purely positivist (and as such not very helpful) and misses the point of morality.

Clearly it is not.  A purely positivist analysis would deny Brown the right to violent revolt, and I explicitly state he had such a right.
Try again.

Quote from: Martinus on July 26, 2011, 05:29:30 PM
the Spanish government had a right to torture false Jewish converts, etc.

The conversos were not free members of a political community; John Brown was. 

I don't think anyone would contest the State had a right to hang John Brown, including John Brown himself. Hell, he essentially said that during his trial.

Quote from: derspiess on July 26, 2011, 03:41:04 PM

Quote from: Valmy on July 26, 2011, 02:54:09 PM
Wow that is one ridiculous sentence.  I appreciate you pointing out what a lazy thinker Hawthorne was but why else does that bear repeating?

Because he was right.  Brown was a murderer & a traitor.  Yeah, he was an abolitionist, but so what?  An abolitionist psychopath is still a psychopath.

Anyway, John Brown's hanging was the best thing that could happen to him as far as his legacy was concerned-- Hawthorne pointed that out, as well.

I was under the impression he was hung as a traitor to Virginia.  I don't think he was from Virginia, claimed residence there, or swore allegiance to the State.

I'd contest that.  If we can excuse, for the moment, the collateral deaths (such as the baggage handler), which are thornier issues, then I would think ordinary defense of others would apply, albeit in an extraordinary situation.  Slaveowning was an ongoing "crime."  At Potawottamie, the parisans of slaveowners were pulled from their beds to be killed; the notion that the violence those partisans took part in ceased because they were asleep is incorrectly characterizing the extraordinary situation of an armed militia as an ordinary one.  You can not treat an organized militia, or an entire sick society, as individual dangerous men.  No military leader would or could treat an enemy army in such fashion.

Virginia may have had the right to punish Brown for those collateral deaths.  Although morally excusable (versus morally justified), the state of Virginia could be argued to be legitimate insofar as it enforced legitimate law.  I'd have to think more to come up with an answer to excuse revolutionaries from negligent (or reckless) noncombatant deaths, other than the justness of their cause, which I don't think will fly with you guys.  Edit: actually, I think the idea that Virginia was a legitimate sovereign at all is the problem.  Once a state crosses a line like slavery, it's the end of its legitimacy in all matters.  None of its laws can be said to have moral force (norms such as "don't kill indiscriminately" and "don't rape" would, but obligations like "pay taxes" or prohibitions such as "no private ownership of surface-to-air-missiles" do not).

But as for the main issue, I don't see the logic nor the practical guidance in affirming John Brown's right to violently resist, while at the same time affirming the right of the state he resisted to kill him.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 26, 2011, 05:06:08 PM
That is a pretty strong natural law position to take.

The problem that John Brown faces it seems to me is that he is a citizen of a republic whose basic law recognizes the right to enslave human beings, so that he cannot with any consistency claim the rights and protections of citizenship while at the same time rejecting the legitimacy of some of its basic laws.  Moreover, I don't think the problem can be solved by placing the slaveholders alone in the position of "hostis humani generis" while characterizing the government as a purely passive actor.  This was the age of the Fugitive Slave Act and Dred Scott - the general government is an active enforcer of slavery, and thus the entire political community is complicit. So as I see it, Brown has one of two choices -- either (1) accept the basic legitimacy of the political community in which he lives and limit himself to those avenues of the protest that the community permits, or (2) reject the legitimacy of the polity and become literally an "outlaw".  In choosing the latter, he justifiably could seek recourse to violence to counter violence, but at the same time could not be heard to complain if the political community then exacted the penalty for outlawry.  Put simply, Brown had justification to foment an armed slave rebellion and the state had justification to hang him for it.

All the more reason for violence. Given that John Brown was plotting a nation wide slave revolt, I hardly think it credible to argue that he did not "reject the legitimacy of the polity".

The problem with a pure natural rights view is that it presumes the moral reasoning can be conducted with scientific precision and certitude.  If it cannot (as I would maintain) then not only is a theoretical polity based on natural right doomed to endless strife due to disagreement over the right, but it is all so true that there is way even in theory for such strife to be resolved.

The dual virtue of democracy is that not only can be be justified as a matter of right in itself (based on an appeal to autonomy and a priori equality) but it can separately and additionally be justified as a procedural mechanism to respond to the limitations of moral reasoning.  Ie recognizings that moral reasoning cannot universally yield determinate answers to all critical political questions, democracy provides a fair procedural mechanism for resolving such disagreements.  But such a mechanism requires not only recognition not only the fundamental rights that are a condition for democracy to function but also that all members of the democracy agree to renounce violence as a means of resolving political disputes, and instead to agree to abide bybthe procedures of democracy itself.

In this simple schema therefore a member of a nondemocratic polity retains the right to follow their own moral reasoning, and the state cannot legitimately punish him other than as an exercise o raw power.  In a true democracy, matters stand quite to the contrary and the right of the individual to pursue moral ends is subject to the rules of democratic political engagement.

The problem of course is that life rarely accords with the simple schema and true democracies are few and far between.   Specifically the situation in 1850s america is a hybrid form where only property holding males have full rights, and certain persons (slaves) have none.  In such a system the right of the slave to rebel and use violence follows from the fundamental right of self defense and the state cannot legitimately punish the exercise of that right as the state has no justifiable claim to the slaves obedience and adherence to it's laws.  But the situation for a property holding white male like Brown is different.  He fully enjoys all political rights, including the manifold opportunity to redress wrongs.  His enjoyment of those rights does not make slavery any less an evil and thus if one accepts slavery to be a basic moral wrong (as I do) his taking violent action in aid of the oppressed is morally justified.  But in taking that action, he also violates his duty as citizen enjoying full rights in a democracy to abide by the rules of political engagement, and the state may therefore legitimately punish him for that.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 26, 2011, 07:02:47 PMThe dual virtue of democracy is that not only can be be justified as a matter of right in itself (based on an appeal to autonomy and a priori equality) but it can separately and additionally be justified as a procedural mechanism to respond to the limitations of moral reasoning.  Ie recognizings that moral reasoning cannot universally yield determinate answers to all critical political questions, democracy provides a fair procedural mechanism for resolving such disagreements.  But such a mechanism requires not only recognition not only the fundamental rights that are a condition for democracy to function but also that all members of the democracy agree to renounce violence as a means of resolving political disputes, and instead to agree to abide bybthe procedures of democracy itself.

In this simple schema therefore a member of a nondemocratic polity retains the right to follow their own moral reasoning, and the state cannot legitimately punish him other than as an exercise o raw power.  In a true democracy, matters stand quite to the contrary and the right of the individual to pursue moral ends is subject to the rules of democratic political engagement.

The problem of course is that life rarely accords with the simple schema and true democracies are few and far between.   Specifically the situation in 1850s america is a hybrid form where only property holding males have full rights, and certain persons (slaves) have none.  In such a system the right of the slave to rebel and use violence follows from the fundamental right of self defense and the state cannot legitimately punish the exercise of that right as the state has no justifiable claim to the slaves obedience and adherence to it's laws.  But the situation for a property holding white male like Brown is different.  He fully enjoys all political rights, including the manifold opportunity to redress wrongs.  His enjoyment of those rights does not make slavery any less an evil and thus if one accepts slavery to be a basic moral wrong (as I do) his taking violent action in aid of the oppressed is morally justified.  But in taking that action, he also violates his duty as citizen enjoying full rights in a democracy to abide by the rules of political engagement, and the state may therefore legitimately punish him for that.

Ok, I think I understand the logic, though I don't agree that he violated his duty, because I don't believe the existence of a duty has been established.  The ongoing, instant violence of slavery defeats any purpose democratic process would have.  Basically, when you see a woman being raped, you don't write your congressman.

I like to think that engaging in that process is still morally worthwhile (if violent opposition to any oppression, any where, is morally obligatory, then all of us are damned), but in the case of slavery democracy had demonstrably failed.  Slavery wasn't new in 1858; the United States, with all its democratic process, had existed for almost a century, and done little to curb the institution.

At what point is it acceptable to accept the failure of democracy, and move on to other means?  At what point is it necessary?

Quote from: Ideologue on July 26, 2011, 07:26:35 PM
Slavery wasn't new in 1858; the United States, with all its democratic process, had existed for almost a century, and done little to curb the institution.

In 1780, slavery was legal everywhere in the U.S.;  by 1860, it was only legal in half the states, and there wasn't much room in the reamaining territories for it to expand into.  Also, the U.S. had banned the African slave trade almost as soon as the Constitution allowed it, and the Buchanan administration was starting to actually enforce the ban.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 25, 2011, 09:44:03 PM

Quote from: Oexmelin on July 25, 2011, 09:26:31 PM
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.

:lmfao:

While your fellow man is in shackles?

Quote from: Ideologue on July 26, 2011, 07:26:35 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 26, 2011, 07:02:47 PMThe dual virtue of democracy is that not only can be be justified as a matter of right in itself (based on an appeal to autonomy and a priori equality) but it can separately and additionally be justified as a procedural mechanism to respond to the limitations of moral reasoning.  Ie recognizings that moral reasoning cannot universally yield determinate answers to all critical political questions, democracy provides a fair procedural mechanism for resolving such disagreements.  But such a mechanism requires not only recognition not only the fundamental rights that are a condition for democracy to function but also that all members of the democracy agree to renounce violence as a means of resolving political disputes, and instead to agree to abide bybthe procedures of democracy itself.

In this simple schema therefore a member of a nondemocratic polity retains the right to follow their own moral reasoning, and the state cannot legitimately punish him other than as an exercise o raw power.  In a true democracy, matters stand quite to the contrary and the right of the individual to pursue moral ends is subject to the rules of democratic political engagement.

The problem of course is that life rarely accords with the simple schema and true democracies are few and far between.   Specifically the situation in 1850s america is a hybrid form where only property holding males have full rights, and certain persons (slaves) have none.  In such a system the right of the slave to rebel and use violence follows from the fundamental right of self defense and the state cannot legitimately punish the exercise of that right as the state has no justifiable claim to the slaves obedience and adherence to it's laws.  But the situation for a property holding white male like Brown is different.  He fully enjoys all political rights, including the manifold opportunity to redress wrongs.  His enjoyment of those rights does not make slavery any less an evil and thus if one accepts slavery to be a basic moral wrong (as I do) his taking violent action in aid of the oppressed is morally justified.  But in taking that action, he also violates his duty as citizen enjoying full rights in a democracy to abide by the rules of political engagement, and the state may therefore legitimately punish him for that.

Ok, I think I understand the logic, though I don't agree that he violated his duty, because I don't believe the existence of a duty has been established.  The ongoing, instant violence of slavery defeats any purpose democratic process would have.  Basically, when you see a woman being raped, you don't write your congressman.

I like to think that engaging in that process is still morally worthwhile (if violent opposition to any oppression, any where, is morally obligatory, then all of us are damned), but in the case of slavery democracy had demonstrably failed.  Slavery wasn't new in 1858; the United States, with all its democratic process, had existed for almost a century, and done little to curb the institution.

At what point is it acceptable to accept the failure of democracy, and move on to other means?  At what point is it necessary?

Maybe you can ask Breivik.

Shut up, Slargos.

why? youre essentially saying that one only needs to believe strongly enough that a crime is being committed in order to justify murder.

Quote from: Slargos on July 26, 2011, 09:46:35 PM
Maybe you can ask Breivik.

:lol:

Well-played.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 26, 2011, 05:06:08 PM

That is a pretty strong natural law position to take.

The problem that John Brown faces it seems to me is that he is a citizen of a republic whose basic law recognizes the right to enslave human beings, so that he cannot with any consistency claim the rights and protections of citizenship while at the same time rejecting the legitimacy of some of its basic laws.  Moreover, I don't think the problem can be solved by placing the slaveholders alone in the position of "hostis humani generis" while characterizing the government as a purely passive actor.  This was the age of the Fugitive Slave Act and Dred Scott - the general government is an active enforcer of slavery, and thus the entire political community is complicit.  So as I see it, Brown has one of two choices -- either (1) accept the basic legitimacy of the political community in which he lives and limit himself to those avenues of the protest that the community permits, or (2) reject the legitimacy of the polity and become literally an "outlaw".  In choosing the latter, he justifiably could seek recourse to violence to counter violence, but at the same time could not be heard to complain if the political community then exacted the penalty for outlawry.  Put simply, Brown had justification to foment an armed slave rebellion and the state had justification to hang him for it.

I think that the justification of violence requires several conditions to be met: a) a moral cause, b) a reasonable expectation of success, and c) a reasonable expectation that the ends will justify the means after success is achieved.

John Brown met a), he didn't meet b) or c). I'd say he didn't have justification.

Quote from: alfred russel on July 26, 2011, 10:34:06 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 26, 2011, 05:06:08 PM

That is a pretty strong natural law position to take.

The problem that John Brown faces it seems to me is that he is a citizen of a republic whose basic law recognizes the right to enslave human beings, so that he cannot with any consistency claim the rights and protections of citizenship while at the same time rejecting the legitimacy of some of its basic laws.  Moreover, I don't think the problem can be solved by placing the slaveholders alone in the position of "hostis humani generis" while characterizing the government as a purely passive actor.  This was the age of the Fugitive Slave Act and Dred Scott - the general government is an active enforcer of slavery, and thus the entire political community is complicit.  So as I see it, Brown has one of two choices -- either (1) accept the basic legitimacy of the political community in which he lives and limit himself to those avenues of the protest that the community permits, or (2) reject the legitimacy of the polity and become literally an "outlaw".  In choosing the latter, he justifiably could seek recourse to violence to counter violence, but at the same time could not be heard to complain if the political community then exacted the penalty for outlawry.  Put simply, Brown had justification to foment an armed slave rebellion and the state had justification to hang him for it.

I think that the justification of violence requires several conditions to be met: a) a moral cause, b) a reasonable expectation of success, and c) a reasonable expectation that the ends will justify the means after success is achieved.

John Brown met a), he didn't meet b) or c). I'd say he didn't have justification.

I don't think that a reasonable expectation is necessary, if the anticipated fallout will favor your cause. Unlike Viking I see very little hope that there could have been peaceful abolition in the US after the 1830s when the issue was last discussed in a southern legislature. From that point on the South grew ever more radical and fanatical in the institution's defense.

To abolish slavery, a war was needed and John Brown helped provoke that war with his actions. John Brown's raid lead to an explosion in tension between the sections, and the fallout of this is in part to blame for the Civil War. The war ended with 4 million slaves freed.

If John Brown knew how his action would be received in the North by abolitionists, and how the South would react in turn to that reaction I'd say that justifies his actions. Given the way he played the martyr during his trail, I think that he knew what he was doing.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 26, 2011, 10:56:04 PM
To abolish slavery, a war was needed and John Brown helped provoke that war with his actions. John Brown's raid lead to an explosion in tension between the sections, and the fallout of this is in part to blame for the Civil War. The war ended with 4 million slaves freed.

See, I think this is the only way that you can justify what Brown did, and I don't buy it.  There's no way to know for sure, of course, but I figure without Brown, Lincoln would still have won the 1860 election, and the South would have still seceded, and there would still have been a war that the Union won.

I like how starting a devastating civil war with hundreds of thousands killed is seen as something positive that may justify acts of terrorism.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 26, 2011, 07:02:47 PM
The problem with a pure natural rights view is that it presumes the moral reasoning can be conducted with scientific precision and certitude.  If it cannot (as I would maintain) then not only is a theoretical polity based on natural right doomed to endless strife due to disagreement over the right, but it is all so true that there is way even in theory for such strife to be resolved.

The dual virtue of democracy is that not only can be be justified as a matter of right in itself (based on an appeal to autonomy and a priori equality) but it can separately and additionally be justified as a procedural mechanism to respond to the limitations of moral reasoning.  Ie recognizings that moral reasoning cannot universally yield determinate answers to all critical political questions, democracy provides a fair procedural mechanism for resolving such disagreements.  But such a mechanism requires not only recognition not only the fundamental rights that are a condition for democracy to function but also that all members of the democracy agree to renounce violence as a means of resolving political disputes, and instead to agree to abide bybthe procedures of democracy itself.

In this simple schema therefore a member of a nondemocratic polity retains the right to follow their own moral reasoning, and the state cannot legitimately punish him other than as an exercise o raw power.  In a true democracy, matters stand quite to the contrary and the right of the individual to pursue moral ends is subject to the rules of democratic political engagement.

The problem of course is that life rarely accords with the simple schema and true democracies are few and far between.   Specifically the situation in 1850s america is a hybrid form where only property holding males have full rights, and certain persons (slaves) have none.  In such a system the right of the slave to rebel and use violence follows from the fundamental right of self defense and the state cannot legitimately punish the exercise of that right as the state has no justifiable claim to the slaves obedience and adherence to it's laws.  But the situation for a property holding white male like Brown is different.  He fully enjoys all political rights, including the manifold opportunity to redress wrongs.  His enjoyment of those rights does not make slavery any less an evil and thus if one accepts slavery to be a basic moral wrong (as I do) his taking violent action in aid of the oppressed is morally justified.  But in taking that action, he also violates his duty as citizen enjoying full rights in a democracy to abide by the rules of political engagement, and the state may therefore legitimately punish him for that.

I disagree with the last part of your analysis. If you accept that it is permissible to use violence in defense of liberty and life of those unlawfully deprived of it (in this case slaves), the violence is permitted both by those who are directly oppressed and those who stand up in their defense.

If a criminal is pointing a gun at you with an intention to kill you, you have a right to kill him in self-defense, but so do I have such a right in defense of your life.

John Brown would not be authorized to use violence to defend, say, against a tax imposed on him by the polity he is a member of, however he was in hisright to use violence in defense of those who were deprived of their fundamental rights by the polity.

Quote from: The Brain on July 27, 2011, 03:18:56 AM
I like how starting a devastating civil war with hundreds of thousands killed is seen as something positive that may justify acts of terrorism.

where would we be today without all the acw games? net good.

Quote from: Slargos on July 27, 2011, 03:22:55 AM

Quote from: The Brain on July 27, 2011, 03:18:56 AM
I like how starting a devastating civil war with hundreds of thousands killed is seen as something positive that may justify acts of terrorism.

where would we be today without all the acw games? net good.

Last I played was North & South. I think I'd survive.

John Brown's impact was not his idiotic attacks, but rather his public face on trial.  Coming across as a doomed messianic man, bent and wracked by the struggles he faced, ended up with far more impact than a botched attack on Harpers Ferry.

It was a revolution only in his twisted mind, but it was public theater of the finest order in the court room.

Quote from: Martinus on July 27, 2011, 03:21:05 AM
I disagree with the last part of your analysis. If you accept that it is permissible to use violence in defense of liberty and life of those unlawfully deprived of it (in this case slaves), the violence is permitted both by those who are directly oppressed and those who stand up in their defense.

Then you agree with the last part of my analysis, because that is what the last part says: "His enjoyment of those rights does not make slavery any less an evil and thus if one accepts slavery to be a basic moral wrong (as I do) his taking violent action in aid of the oppressed is morally justified."

BTW same response to ideologue.  I am not disputing the justness of Browns action, thought that was quite clear.  I am disputing ideologue's claim that the State cannot legitimately punish him simply because he acted justly.

It was clear.  I'm not clear on what your limit for a "legitimate" state is, except it's a lot higher than mine--which is fair enough, since I've taken a rather hard line on political legitimacy that "outlaws" about 99% of states which have ever existed, and probably more than half of the states which presently exist.

States don't care whether you find them legitimate or not, Ide. You're insignificant.

I hear the wind.

I don't think the wind cares either.

Quote from: Ideologue on July 27, 2011, 04:29:47 PM
I hear the wind.

And the voices in your head, I'm betting.

Quote from: Ideologue on July 27, 2011, 04:29:47 PM
I hear the wind.

Must be the cabbage I ate. Sorry.

To answer the question... ten-fifteen years ago I would've supported violence as a means to an end. Today, no. I've come to the conclusion that revolutionary violence leads to few or no immediate positives and that any political movement justifying violence as a "necessity" for a better future inevitably will use the same logic once in power and be impervious to criticism.

 :lmfao:  :lmfao: oh youre serious......  :huh:  :huh:

Quote from: Slargos on July 27, 2011, 05:26:03 PM
:lmfao:  :lmfao: oh youre serious......  :huh:  :huh:

:huh:

Quote from: Norgy on July 27, 2011, 05:12:13 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on July 27, 2011, 04:29:47 PM
I hear the wind.

Must be the cabbage I ate. Sorry.

To answer the question... ten-fifteen years ago I would've supported violence as a means to an end. Today, no. I've come to the conclusion that revolutionary violence leads to few or no immediate positives and that any political movement justifying violence as a "necessity" for a better future inevitably will use the same logic once in power and be impervious to criticism.

Did Washington and co. have this problem? Did the abolitionists during reconstruction? :hmm:

Quote from: Ideologue on July 27, 2011, 04:10:43 PM
It was clear.  I'm not clear on what your limit for a "legitimate" state is, except it's a lot higher than mine--which is fair enough, since I've taken a rather hard line on political legitimacy that "outlaws" about 99% of states which have ever existed, and probably more than half of the states which presently exist.

Then that means your 'hard line' is wrong.

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.

Quote from: Norgy on July 27, 2011, 06:49:33 PM
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.

Reactionary.

Quote from: Norgy on July 27, 2011, 06:49:33 PM
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. 

Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 27, 2011, 07:02:27 PM

Quote from: Norgy on July 27, 2011, 06:49:33 PM
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.

Quote from: Neil on July 27, 2011, 07:11:10 PM

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.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 27, 2011, 07:14:11 PM

Quote from: Neil on July 27, 2011, 07:11:10 PM

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.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 27, 2011, 07:02:27 PM

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.

Quote from: Norgy on July 27, 2011, 06:49:33 PM
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?

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.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 27, 2011, 07:50:39 PM
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.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 27, 2011, 07:50:39 PM
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?

Quote from: Neil on July 27, 2011, 08:07:20 PM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 27, 2011, 07:50:39 PM
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.  :P

Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 27, 2011, 08:40:32 PM

Quote from: Neil on July 27, 2011, 08:07:20 PM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 27, 2011, 07:50:39 PM
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.  :P

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

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.

Quote from: Neil on July 27, 2011, 08:07:20 PM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 27, 2011, 07:50:39 PM
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.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 27, 2011, 07:50:39 PM
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.

:D

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

I still maintain that violence isn't the answer.

Quote from: Norgy on July 28, 2011, 03:22:14 AM
I dug a rather deep, nice hole, didn't I.

I still maintain that violence isn't the answer.

Yes. It is.

It always is, and it always will be.

Violence or the threat of violence permeates your entire existence.

Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on July 27, 2011, 09:29:38 PM
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.

I think most people disagree with Timmy's claim that the ACW was a "revolution". It was a classic civil war. Perhaps it could be the reason why it is called the American Civil War.  :hmm:

Quote from: Neil on July 27, 2011, 08:07:20 PM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 27, 2011, 07:50:39 PM
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?

It's actually less than an appeal to authority. It's an appeal to a book title (which are known for their scientific precision and lack of hyperbole).

Quote from: Martinus on July 28, 2011, 05:21:16 AM

Quote from: Neil on July 27, 2011, 08:07:20 PM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 27, 2011, 07:50:39 PM
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?

It's actually less than an appeal to authority. It's an appeal to a book title (which are known for their scientific precision and lack of hyperbole).

If I had The Battle Cry of Freedom on hand I'd quote where he expounds on the war's revolutionary nature, but I don't have it with me.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 28, 2011, 05:33:25 AM

Quote from: Martinus on July 28, 2011, 05:21:16 AM

Quote from: Neil on July 27, 2011, 08:07:20 PM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 27, 2011, 07:50:39 PM
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?

It's actually less than an appeal to authority. It's an appeal to a book title (which are known for their scientific precision and lack of hyperbole).

If I had The Battle Cry of Freedom on hand I'd quote where he expounds on the war's revolutionary nature, but I don't have it with me.

:D

Quote from: Norgy on July 27, 2011, 06:49:33 PM
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.

I had this constantly force-fed to me in college, and I even started believing it at a certain point.  On the surface & in immediate terms, yeah it was a transfer of power from one set of elites to another.  But that superficial argument ignores the radically different course we decided to take with how we formed our new government.  Sure, it was less of an upheaval than the Bolshevik Revolution & some others, but it was very much a revolution.

Quote from: Martinus on July 28, 2011, 05:19:27 AM
I think most people disagree with Timmy's claim that the ACW was a "revolution". It was a classic civil war.

:huh:  Really?  The South was looking to overthrow Lincoln and install Davis as President of the USA?

Quote from: Habbaku on July 28, 2011, 09:50:51 AM

Quote from: Martinus on July 28, 2011, 05:19:27 AM
I think most people disagree with Timmy's claim that the ACW was a "revolution". It was a classic civil war.

:huh:  Really?  The South was looking to overthrow Lincoln and install Davis as President of the USA?

:huh:

Quote from: derspiess on July 28, 2011, 09:22:42 AM

Quote from: Norgy on July 27, 2011, 06:49:33 PM
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.

I had this constantly force-fed to me in college, and I even started believing it at a certain point.  On the surface & in immediate terms, yeah it was a transfer of power from one set of elites to another.  But that superficial argument ignores the radically different course we decided to take with how we formed our new government.  Sure, it was less of an upheaval than the Bolshevik Revolution & some others, but it was very much a revolution.

This again.

If you're going to argue whether something or other is something or other, can't you agree on the definition of the something and other first? :weep:

Dictionary.com gives us the following definitions (snipped the irrelevant ones)

1. an overthrow or repudiation and the (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/the) thorough replacement of an established government or political system by the people (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/people) governed. 2. Sociology . a radical and pervasive (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pervasive) change in society and the social structure, especially one made suddenly and often accompanied by violence.

By both these definitions, the American Revolution is indeed a revolution.

It doesn't matter if the people in revolt are the landed class or the plebes.

Quote from: The Brain on July 28, 2011, 09:54:48 AM

Quote from: Habbaku on July 28, 2011, 09:50:51 AM

Quote from: Martinus on July 28, 2011, 05:19:27 AM
I think most people disagree with Timmy's claim that the ACW was a "revolution". It was a classic civil war.

:huh:  Really?  The South was looking to overthrow Lincoln and install Davis as President of the USA?

:huh:

:tinfoil:

The American Revolution can be described as a revolution. In America. Hence not the "British Revolution". The American Civil War could possibly be described as the "Southern (Attempted) Revolution" but not as an American revolution for reasons analogous with the original American Revolution above.

But what kind of sick fuck cares about these terms anyway?

Quote from: Habbaku on July 28, 2011, 10:02:08 AM

Quote from: The Brain on July 28, 2011, 09:54:48 AM

Quote from: Habbaku on July 28, 2011, 09:50:51 AM

Quote from: Martinus on July 28, 2011, 05:19:27 AM
I think most people disagree with Timmy's claim that the ACW was a "revolution". It was a classic civil war.

:huh:  Really?  The South was looking to overthrow Lincoln and install Davis as President of the USA?

:huh:

:tinfoil:

:unsure:

Quote from: The Brain on July 28, 2011, 10:07:16 AM

Quote from: Habbaku on July 28, 2011, 10:02:08 AM

Quote from: The Brain on July 28, 2011, 09:54:48 AM

Quote from: Habbaku on July 28, 2011, 09:50:51 AM

Quote from: Martinus on July 28, 2011, 05:19:27 AM
I think most people disagree with Timmy's claim that the ACW was a "revolution". It was a classic civil war.

:huh:  Really?  The South was looking to overthrow Lincoln and install Davis as President of the USA?

:huh:

:tinfoil:

:unsure:

:moon:

Quote from: Habbaku on July 28, 2011, 09:50:51 AM

Quote from: Martinus on July 28, 2011, 05:19:27 AM
I think most people disagree with Timmy's claim that the ACW was a "revolution". It was a classic civil war.

:huh:  Really?  The South was looking to overthrow Lincoln and install Davis as President of the USA?

Merriam-Webster defines a civil war as "a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country". Other dictionary definitions include:

"A war between factions or regions of the same country." (American Heritage)
"a war fought between different groups of people within the same country" (Macmillan)
"a war fought by different groups of people living in the same country" (Cambridge)
"a war within a nation between opposing political factions or regions. (Wordsmyth)

I don't know where you take the requirement of a violent overthrow of the government from - it may be one of many goals of a civil war, but does not need to be one.

According to that definition the ACW wasn't really a civil war though.  :hmm:

Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 28, 2011, 05:33:25 AM


If I had The Battle Cry of Freedom on hand I'd quote where he expounds on the war's revolutionary nature, but I don't have it with me.

I wouldn't debate that the war, and indeed other wars, like the Franco-Prussian war, WW II, WW I and more doesn't introduce revolutionary change. Changes often imposed by the winning side, one might add. There is, however, a reason why we don't call World War One The Rather Huge Revolution For Russia, Germany and Austria-Hungary That Lasted For Four Years. Now the comparison may be dishonest in that there was no clear war goal of regime change, unlike in the ACW, yet I would still call a war a war.

Regime change, the violent overthrow of a previous regime, is more often considered a revolution when done by internal forces rather than external. Drastic policy shifts may be labeled revolutionary, yet freeing the slaves or extending the isn't a revolution.

As for the glib remark about the American Revolution, it was an inaccurate paraphrase of Howard Zinn's view, as he puts it in A People's History Of The United States or whatever it was called.

Anyway, if I say "almost every revolutionary movement has had a tendency to both eat its own children and create a worse regime than it replaced, and therefore I don't support armed revolution", I suppose that still is a fairly accurate description of my stance.

The Civil War itself was not a revolution, but the political revisions that arose out of the war -- mostly subsequent in time to the actual hostilities - are of sufficient significance that IMO it is fair to refer to as a "revolution". 

Quote from: Norgy on July 28, 2011, 11:55:36 AM
As for the glib remark about the American Revolution, it was an inaccurate paraphrase of Howard Zinn's view, as he puts it in A People's History Of The United States or whatever it was called.

Fun book but need to keep a pile of grained salt handy as you read.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 28, 2011, 12:46:41 PM
The Civil War itself was not a revolution, but the political revisions that arose out of the war -- mostly subsequent in time to the actual hostilities - are of sufficient significance that IMO it is fair to refer to as a "revolution". 

Most of those revisions are so far removed from the Civil War in time that it's problematic IMO to even describe them as results of the war.  Within a fairly short time after the war, the southern planter aristocracy was once again in power throughout the south, and while slavery was abolished de jure, the economic and social structures of slavery still existed de facto. 

Quote from: dps on July 28, 2011, 01:27:42 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 28, 2011, 12:46:41 PM
The Civil War itself was not a revolution, but the political revisions that arose out of the war -- mostly subsequent in time to the actual hostilities - are of sufficient significance that IMO it is fair to refer to as a "revolution". 

Most of those revisions are so far removed from the Civil War in time that it's problematic IMO to even describe them as results of the war.  Within a fairly short time after the war, the southern planter aristocracy was once again in power throughout the south, and while slavery was abolished de jure, the economic and social structures of slavery still existed de facto.

Counter-Revolution.

Quote from: Oexmelin on July 25, 2011, 09:26:31 PM
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?

that begs the question: what is an unjust regime? 

Today's anarchists believe our regime is an unjust one, corrupt by the rich and powerful who aim to keep their priviledges by keeping those below them in a state akin to slavery.
They feel justified to violently protest and trash everything they can.

Some people feel, like that guy in Norway, that democracy is a tool for the corrupt elites to maintain domination over the people and have no choice but to act themselves.  To them, violence is justified to prevent slavery to an alien culture.

The problem with legitimizing violence in a democratic country, by a third party not directly implicated in slavery is that you can use it to justify any sort of actions.  AFAIK, there was no slave's revolt with John Brown, it went nowhere.
Yet, through democracy, a series of measures where eventually voted, over time, to restrict slavery.  Some of these measures became unaceptable for a group of people who decided to break away from the country and it ultimately led to freedom for every slaves.

But what did Brown's action accomplished?  Nothing.

Slavery was abolished in most countries via democratic and peaceful means.

Quote from: dps on July 28, 2011, 01:27:42 PM
Most of those revisions are so far removed from the Civil War in time that it's problematic IMO to even describe them as results of the war. 

The 13th through 15th amendments were definitely results of the war; they never would have been passed in its absence.  In fact, there are typically called the "Civil War Amendments."  Those amendments in themselves fundamentally altered the architecture of American government, the collapse of Reconstruction notwithstanding.

Quote from: viper37 on July 28, 2011, 01:52:31 PM
Slavery was abolished in most countries via democratic and peaceful means.

Yes, but it took time (and in America it needed a civil war, but that's besides the point). So how many slaves died, murdered by their owners, whether directly or because of inhuman conditions they were in, in the time it took for the democratic process to kick in?

100? 1000? 10000? Where do you draw a line when we are talking about human life and freedom?

As for your argument that some consider the modern society unjust and some don't - well this is a bit like arguing that ethics does not exist since it means different things to different people. Only because some people are wrong, does not mean it is impossible to be right. Your outlook is very relativist.

The problem with John Brown is that of judging events in hindsight. Most people (Lettows aside) more or less agree that slavery is wrong and that it is okay to combat slavery with violence; in hindsight, John Brown's actions did, indeed, have the effect of in part triggering the events that lead to the demise of slavery, and his manipulation of public opinion in court towards that end was masterful. [Mind you, that event was a horribly destructive civil war ...]

The problem is that the violence John Brown used to combat slavery was tinged with a strong degree of lunacy, and in other circumstances could easily have had the opposite effect to that intended. Good can come out of lunatic violence it is true, but that possibility does not justify lunatic violence - even in the best of causes.

It is like the "just war" problem - the use of violence has to be "just" both in motive and execution. 

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 28, 2011, 12:47:57 PM
Fun book but need to keep a pile of grained salt handy as you read.

Graining the salt is just too much damn work.

Quote from: Malthus on July 28, 2011, 02:03:59 PM
The problem with John Brown is that of judging events in hindsight. Most people (Lettows aside) more or less agree that slavery is wrong and that it is okay to combat slavery with violence; in hindsight, John Brown's actions did, indeed, have the effect of in part triggering the events that lead to the demise of slavery, and his manipulation of public opinion in court towards that end was masterful. [Mind you, that event was a horribly destructive civil war ...]

The problem is that the violence John Brown used to combat slavery was tinged with a strong degree of lunacy, and in other circumstances could easily have had the opposite effect to that intended. Good can come out of lunatic violence it is true, but that possibility does not justify lunatic violence - even in the best of causes.

It is like the "just war" problem - the use of violence has to be "just" both in motive and execution.

Well, I think we all agree that he was not very productive. My position is more of an abstract one I must say.

Quote from: Malthus on July 28, 2011, 02:03:59 PM
It is like the "just war" problem - the use of violence has to be "just" both in motive and execution.

I don't like that "reasonable chance of success" stuff.

Quote from: Ideologue on July 28, 2011, 02:53:07 PM

Quote from: Malthus on July 28, 2011, 02:03:59 PM
It is like the "just war" problem - the use of violence has to be "just" both in motive and execution.

I don't like that "reasonable chance of success" stuff.

Why not?

Quote from: Ideologue on July 28, 2011, 02:53:07 PM

Quote from: Malthus on July 28, 2011, 02:03:59 PM
It is like the "just war" problem - the use of violence has to be "just" both in motive and execution.

I don't like that "reasonable chance of success" stuff.

Because calculating your risk = bad?  :huh:

To answer your questions, gentlemen, I think it is a strategic concern, not a moral one.

There is no moral dimension to the surrender or passivity to an unjust cause, thereby making injustice more profitable for the wrongdoer.  This is the moral and evolutionary value of spite--even if it means defeat or death, by hurting an opponent as much as you can, you damage their ability to do unto others what they have done unto you, and contribute to their eventual defeat.

Because of this, the threat of spite is also a powerful negotiating tool.

Further, if the logic of "likelihood of success" was internalized at an individual level, you would often fail to motivate an individual (short of punishment) to fight at all.

To take an extreme example of what I mean, if you lived in a country which decided your tiny minority ethnic group was to be wiped out (or enslaved, or deported), is it less moral to fight to extinction than to accept extinction (or enslavement, or deportation) without resistance?

I suppose this practically applies principally, if not entirely, to defensive struggles, but I don't think anyone would have accused, say, Switzerland of being engaged in an unjust war if they had unilaterally attacked the Nazis in 1943, inviting defeat and destruction upon their own country.

it would certainly have been unjust to their population

Yes.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 28, 2011, 12:47:57 PM

Fun book but need to keep a pile of grained salt handy as you read.

Oh, indeed. It's a bit like shock comedy.
What's he going to say next?

You assholes know where I stand on this issue.  So fuck all of you Confederatards and pussies.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 25, 2011, 09:44:03 PM

Quote from: Oexmelin on July 25, 2011, 09:26:31 PM
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.

Lulz  You would've been Kevin Bacon's character at the end of Animal House during the Sacking of Lawrence.

That's a dumbass statement, and luckily it was addressed throughout the thread during my absence.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 25, 2011, 10:40:09 PM
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.

John Brown's failure in his plan was actually expecting slaves to see "the big picture" in his attempts to foment them into an insurrection army, a la the Haitian Maroons.  Half of the slaves he picked up on the way to Harper's Ferry were scared shitless, and had absolutely no clue what the fuck was going on that morning.

If anything, he gave slaves too much credit for political awareness.  But that's the poignant, bittersweet beauty of John Brown, a man who looked upon the slave as his equal.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 30, 2011, 08:57:03 AM

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 25, 2011, 10:40:09 PM
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.

John Brown's failure in his plan was actually expecting slaves to see "the big picture" in his attempts to foment them into an insurrection army, a la the Haitian Maroons.  Half of the slaves he picked up on the way to Harper's Ferry were scared shitless, and had absolutely no clue what the fuck was going on that morning.

If anything, he gave slaves too much credit for political awareness.  But that's the poignant, bittersweet beauty of John Brown, a man who looked upon the slave as his equal.

You know, I wonder if it's really that appropriate to call it a failure in retrospect.  Certainly it would've been a failure on its own terms, but how many racist-ass abolitionists-lite were there?  How many who teared up over Brown's martyrdom, and how many more who didn't care one way or the other, might have been outraged and actively turned against abolition if armed blacks had actually gone on and killed a few thousand white people before the U.S. Army inevitably brought them down?

I mean, I can't say with any real scholarly backing, but just based on my low opinion of people in the 19th century, I'd bet at least a few.  Did a lot of white folk cry over Crazy Horse?

Quote from: Malthus on July 26, 2011, 03:25:13 PM
The problem with John Brown is not that, in the abstract, violence isn't ever an appropriate response to the evils of slavery.

The problem with John Brown is that the particular forms his violence took (the Potawottamie massacre, the raid on Harper's Ferry) were totally non-productive of a solution to the problem of slavery - except insofar as they raised communal tensions leading to the Civil War.

John Brown simply fought slavery the way the pro-slavery forces fought it--as a war.  The Transcendentalists and the rest of the Christian-inspired Abolitionist movement was full of peacenik anti-violence types ("you reason, you persuade", LOL).  The Missouri Ruffians and their government-sanctioned buddies in Kansas committed the vast majority of violent acts and murders, while the Abolitionists wrung their hands and bleated like sheep, trying to reason and persuade in Northern papers while members of Congress got physically assaulted by pro-slavers. 

There were no innocent victims at Potawottamie.  Calling the deaths of individuals who either participated in the Sacking of Lawrence or provided logistical support for Ruffian forays into Kansas to murder Free-Staters a "Massacre" is bullshit.

John Brown simply gave them a taste of their own medicine, and the Abolitionist movement was the better for it.

Quote from: Ideologue on July 30, 2011, 09:07:04 AM
You know, I wonder if it's really that appropriate to call it a failure in retrospect.  Certainly it would've been a failure on its own terms, but how many racist-ass abolitionists-lite were there?  How many who teared up over Brown's martyrdom, and how many more who didn't care one way or the other, might have been outraged and actively turned against abolition if armed blacks had actually gone on and killed a few thousand white people before the U.S. Army inevitably brought them down?

I mean, I can't say with any real scholarly backing, but just based on my low opinion of people in the 19th century, I'd bet at least a few.  Did a lot of white folk cry over Crazy Horse?

I don't consider it a failure at all in the strategic sense.  Harper's Ferry ramped up so much paranoia in the South--as its greatest collective nightmare were slave uprisings--that the South began emptying arsenals en masse', their allies in the Federal government ensuring Federal armories and stock started moving south, and propelled the South into a military-response mindset.

The "abolitionist-lite" types of the North, whose support for Brown prior to Harper's Ferry was behind-the-back funding and promises of support and who wouldn't say a damned thing in public to support Brown--particularly the pussy Transcendentalists--prior to his martyrdom had weapons free after it.  The Raid was the single unifying force between the radicals and the parlor Abolitionists.

Indeed; I'm just considering the possibility it would have been less strategically successful if it had been significantly more tactically successful.

Oh get a room with his corpse already, Seedy.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 30, 2011, 09:10:23 AM

Quote from: Malthus on July 26, 2011, 03:25:13 PM
The problem with John Brown is not that, in the abstract, violence isn't ever an appropriate response to the evils of slavery.

The problem with John Brown is that the particular forms his violence took (the Potawottamie massacre, the raid on Harper's Ferry) were totally non-productive of a solution to the problem of slavery - except insofar as they raised communal tensions leading to the Civil War.

John Brown simply fought slavery the way the pro-slavery forces fought it--as a war.  The Transcendentalists and the rest of the Christian-inspired Abolitionist movement was full of peacenik anti-violence types ("you reason, you persuade", LOL).  The Missouri Ruffians and their government-sanctioned buddies in Kansas committed the vast majority of violent acts and murders, while the Abolitionists wrung their hands and bleated like sheep, trying to reason and persuade in Northern papers while members of Congress got physically assaulted by pro-slavers. 

There were no innocent victims at Potawottamie.  Calling the deaths of individuals who either participated in the Sacking of Lawrence or provided logistical support for Ruffian forays into Kansas to murder Free-Staters a "Massacre" is bullshit.

John Brown simply gave them a taste of their own medicine, and the Abolitionist movement was the better for it.

The problem with Brown wasn't his violence, it was the absurdity of his plans. Attempting to gather up slaves, arm 'em with pikes and stolen guns, and make of them a revolutionary army to send against US regulars was just plain crazy - as was noted at the time. It had not a snowball's chance; it could not have worked and, predictably enough, it did not work.

Quote from: garbon on July 30, 2011, 09:26:17 AM
Oh get a room with his corpse already, Seedy.

Don't make me return you to your massa's plantation.

Quote from: Malthus on July 30, 2011, 10:14:29 AM
The problem with Brown wasn't his violence, it was the absurdity of his plans. Attempting to gather up slaves, arm 'em with pikes and stolen guns, and make of them a revolutionary army to send against US regulars was just plain crazy - as was noted at the time. It had not a snowball's chance; it could not have worked and, predictably enough, it did not work.

I'd go with "grandiose" rather than "absurdity".  He wasn't fashioning an army to send against US regulars, he was fashioning an insurgent army that would run up and down the Appalachians, raiding plantations and scaring the piss out of white people from the mountains.

And while it wasn't the ideal strategy for the 1859 United States, and Brown certainly wasn't a strategist, he wasn't totally stone-cold crazy; the strategy worked for the Haitian Maroons and the Jamaicans, so there was an historical precedent to base it on.

Yeap. Murder is ok as long as you're on the right side.

I'm not sure that "abolutionist-lite" is a fair or accurate way to describe the views of many in the north.  Opinion in the north was basically divided between those who called for the abolition of slavery; those who didn't care if slavery was abolished or not in the south, but didn't want it to expand further; and those who really didn't care.  As best as I can tell, abolitionists were only a majority (or at least a plurality) in New England.

One thing to keep in mind about the abolitionists, though, is that while the firmly condemned the institution of slavery, they didn't give a damn about the slaves themselves.  Only a small number of them had any concern about what would happen to freed blacks if the institution was abolished.

Not even Fredrick Douglas?

Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 30, 2011, 12:21:01 PM

Quote from: garbon on July 30, 2011, 09:26:17 AM
Oh get a room with his corpse already, Seedy.

Don't make me return you to your massa's plantation.

I'm not sure anyone can be my master.

Quote from: garbon on July 30, 2011, 03:16:38 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 30, 2011, 12:21:01 PM

Quote from: garbon on July 30, 2011, 09:26:17 AM
Oh get a room with his corpse already, Seedy.

Don't make me return you to your massa's plantation.

I'm not sure anyone can be my master.

THATS NOT WHAT HE SAID

Wishful thinking.

Quote from: dps on July 30, 2011, 01:56:53 PM
As best as I can tell, abolitionists were only a majority (or at least a plurality) in New England.

You forget there was a substantial abolitionist presence in Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin and Illinois as well.

QuoteOne thing to keep in mind about the abolitionists, though, is that while the firmly condemned the institution of slavery, they didn't give a damn about the slaves themselves.  Only a small number of them had any concern about what would happen to freed blacks if the institution was abolished.

Nonsense.

Quote from: dps on July 30, 2011, 01:56:53 PM
One thing to keep in mind about the abolitionists, though, is that while the firmly condemned the institution of slavery, they didn't give a damn about the slaves themselves.  Only a small number of them had any concern about what would happen to freed blacks if the institution was abolished.

It's interesting to note that the two people who argue the most for Brown are the two most racist people on the forum.

Did Slargos argue for Brown and I missed it?

Quote from: Neil on July 30, 2011, 08:11:38 PM

Quote from: dps on July 30, 2011, 01:56:53 PM
One thing to keep in mind about the abolitionists, though, is that while the firmly condemned the institution of slavery, they didn't give a damn about the slaves themselves.  Only a small number of them had any concern about what would happen to freed blacks if the institution was abolished.

It's interesting to note that the two people who argue the most for Brown are the two most racist people on the forum.

:unsure:

Quote from: Ideologue on July 30, 2011, 09:31:24 PM

Quote from: Neil on July 30, 2011, 08:11:38 PM

Quote from: dps on July 30, 2011, 01:56:53 PM
One thing to keep in mind about the abolitionists, though, is that while the firmly condemned the institution of slavery, they didn't give a damn about the slaves themselves.  Only a small number of them had any concern about what would happen to freed blacks if the institution was abolished.

It's interesting to note that the two people who argue the most for Brown are the two most racist people on the forum.

:unsure:

That's right.  You.

 :lol: 'Kay.

Quote from: Ideologue on July 30, 2011, 10:41:18 PM
:lol: 'Kay.

Be less of a vegetarian.

Quote from: dps on July 30, 2011, 01:56:53 PM
One thing to keep in mind about the abolitionists, though, is that while the firmly condemned the institution of slavery, they didn't give a damn about the slaves themselves.  Only a small number of them had any concern about what would happen to freed blacks if the institution was abolished.

Of course. And the white masters mainly had the good of the blacks in their hearts. They were like fair and wise parents to the unruly childrn.  :rolleyes:

Quote from: Martinus on July 31, 2011, 03:03:21 AM

Quote from: dps on July 30, 2011, 01:56:53 PM
One thing to keep in mind about the abolitionists, though, is that while the firmly condemned the institution of slavery, they didn't give a damn about the slaves themselves.  Only a small number of them had any concern about what would happen to freed blacks if the institution was abolished.

Of course. And the white masters mainly had the good of the blacks in their hearts. They were like fair and wise parents to the unruly childrn.  :rolleyes:

Dumbass.  Of course the slaveowners didn't give a crap about the slave except to the extent that they were of financial value.  But I suggest that you read up a bit on the abolitionist movement before you assume that because they opposed slavery, the abolitionists cared about the slaves as people.  Sure, some of them did--Thaddeus Stevens is a good exaple.  But most of them didn't, really.  Some of the New England abolitionists even supported the idea of southern seccession--their reasoning was that if the slave states left the Union, then the US would be free of the moral taint of slavery.

Well, I heard some abolitionists were fundamentalist Christians so that kind of twisted reasoning is not beyond them.

It's like the anti-Communists.  They would go on at length about about the tyranny the people in communist countries had to endure, but didn't really give a damn about them.  After all, they had no problem with the idea of dropping nuclear weaponry on them.  Better dead then red.

Quote from: Razgovory on July 31, 2011, 04:51:10 AM
It's like the anti-Communists.  They would go on at length about about the tyranny the people in communist countries had to endure, but didn't really give a damn about them.  After all, they had no problem with the idea of dropping nuclear weaponry on them.  Better dead then red.

Why would anyone care what happens to communists?  :huh:

The idea is to prevent further spread of the infection.

Sure, some people also mourn dead flesh, for instance when a gangrenous limb is cut off, but it's just dead tissue and you wouldn't be keeping it anyway.

Quote from: Slargos on July 31, 2011, 07:26:49 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on July 31, 2011, 04:51:10 AM
It's like the anti-Communists.  They would go on at length about about the tyranny the people in communist countries had to endure, but didn't really give a damn about them.  After all, they had no problem with the idea of dropping nuclear weaponry on them.  Better dead then red.

Why would anyone care what happens to communists?  :huh:

The idea is to prevent further spread of the infection.

Sure, some people also mourn dead flesh, for instance when a gangrenous limb is cut off, but it's just dead tissue and you wouldn't be keeping it anyway.

We rated them higher then we rated Nazis.  :contract:  And Swedes for that matter.  You weren't in the Alliance, but if the balloon went up, you'd certainly have been eradicated.

Quote from: Martinus on July 31, 2011, 03:29:41 AM
Well, I heard some abolitionists were fundamentalist Christians

Almost all of them were.

Of course, so were almost all the slaveowners, and almost all the people who didn't really care one way or another, so that's really besides the point.

Quote from: dps on July 31, 2011, 02:27:56 PM

Quote from: Martinus on July 31, 2011, 03:29:41 AM
Well, I heard some abolitionists were fundamentalist Christians

Almost all of them were.

Of course, so were almost all the slaveowners, and almost all the people who didn't really care one way or another, so that's really besides the point.

Define "fundamentalist", here.

Quote from: Razgovory on July 31, 2011, 02:46:17 PM

Quote from: dps on July 31, 2011, 02:27:56 PM

Quote from: Martinus on July 31, 2011, 03:29:41 AM
Well, I heard some abolitionists were fundamentalist Christians

Almost all of them were.

Of course, so were almost all the slaveowners, and almost all the people who didn't really care one way or another, so that's really besides the point.

Define "fundamentalist", here.

Evangelical postmillennial Christianity hit its high water mark in the mid 19th century.

Current fundamentalitsits are of the premillennial variety.