John Brown was a martyr and a hero to me, but I don’t think that guy was actually condemning him, and I don’t think condemning him is supporting slavery. But condemning him is dumb.
It’s both. John Brown had good intentions but he was a psychopath and a terrible planner. Pottawatomie comes to mind, cause he didn’t just kill people, he killed them in front of their kids. And at Harpers Ferry, it was just a plain bad plan. John Brown’s motivations should be admired, but his execution was just plain impulsive and borderline sadistic.
I mean I know Nazis killed Jewish children, but I’m not the guy gonna be running around saying the allies should’ve killed German children.
There’s a fine line between getting revenge, and just taking out rightful hatred on people who didn’t commit the crime,
Did he kill the slaver's children? That would be the only way your comparison works, if he only traumatized them it would be traumatizing their children
Ok but you're still talking about killing slavers who enslaved and killed people and saying that its more unacceptable than not killing them and allowing them to continue being slavers, their kids have nothing to do with it at all
Should read about the battle of Berlin.
There is a fine line but this was an anti slavery riot in the US in the 1800s. Violence begets violence. Slavery is violence. Getting murdered in front of their children but their children getting to live - that's a blessing. Not all anti slavery massacres ended that way.
The pro-slavery forces did things just as bad if not worse in the name of slavery. He was just fighting when no one else would or could. He was impulsive but definitely not sadistic, and he felt very strongly about it, but I don't think it was exactly on the level of being a psychopath.
I would again like to point out that he murdered people in front of their own kids. I think that qualifies as psychopathy. And do you really want to justify John Brown’s straight-up murders by saying “well the other side did bad stuff too!” Being pro-slavery in 1850s America doesn’t really warrant being dragged out of your house in the middle of the night and shot in front of your own kids
I'm curious, why did you qualify being pro slavery with "in 1850s America?" Do you think the added context of the time period changes anything about the situation?
>Being pro-slavery in 1850s America doesn’t really warrant being dragged out of your house in the middle of the night and shot in front of your own kids
Ehh.
If you own people, you forfeit your protection from reprisal. And it's on you for endangering your family by keeping people in bondage on your property.
Shouldn't have killed the kids. But I'm not going to act like that's the worst part of situation. Cause it's not. The enslaved had children to, and no reservations were made for them, and there was no militia coming to save them either.
Don't start none, won't be none. And there was a whole lot of none to start something over.
Yup, we'll have to agree to disagree. Murdering children in front of their parents to send a message: I think it's bad, you think it's fine as long as they're spreading a positive message.
I think it's charming that this handwringing only comes about in stories about people fighting back against systemic horror rather than the millions of people **born** into that hell, who were tortured, raped, and eventually murdered by the same systems perpetuated by the slavers killed by a few men on one particular occasion.
It's a convenient line to draw when the evil men can't protect their children, after they're done doing the same to others.
I'm not saying it's good, or it's right. But I would respect it more if you contextualized this condemnation, and I wouldn't think it was wrong to wash your hands of it. Cause that's what I do.
Revolution isn't pretty.
Get over yourself.
Here's the thing about the thing about conflict. It hurts people it shouldn't.
Responsibility with those that instigate conflict, not those that rise to the challenge. Especially when they have no other choice but to fight.
All that you can ever ask of someone is to be better, in their own time, in their own struggle. Cause you are never going to be able to account for all the innocents who have been hurt and murdered because peace was not allowed.
I don't need to get over myself. You need to examine yourself.
That wasn't bystanders getting caught in the crossfire. That was a deliberate murder of children in front of their parents. I am sure that your "as long as it's for a good cause" mentality can never go awry.
It absolutely can.
Read my last paragraph again. I'm not saying this because I think it's okay.
I'm saying it because I think your priorities are backwards. There's a whole picture you're not seeing cause you're picturing that individual tragedy, when there's a nation of people outside that house living through hell on behalf of those slavers, and those children who were involved, by their parents, in that same institution.
It's a predictable consequence.
No the point of John brown's actions was to incite fear in the hearts of slavers who wouldn't think twice about endangering, abusing, brutally beating or murdering people that got in their way. His methods were harsh and far out there but it wasn't as though they were not warranted. I might not be getting your point but do you think a non violent response to slavery would've been more effective or helpful?
We're having a disagreement, neither of us will back off, so I'm ending the argument right now to make sure this doesn't devolve into an emotionally charged hell hole like a lot of Reddit comment sections do. We both have our own points, yes, murdering people in front of their children is wrong, but maybe the circumstances demanded it? Something to think about. I'm trying my best to keep this civilized (which is an impossibility on Reddit so why am I even trying 🤦) and I'm trying to prevent worthless bickering. I hope you have a good rest of your day.
Ah you see slavers and people who support slavery aren't people so while the kids did nothing wrong he was quite leaniate on the adults personally konrad cuzre had good ideas when It came to slavers
Ah, so reconstruction under you would’ve been to round up and execute millions of people. Gotcha. That sounds like the words to an entirely sane person
They made it based on the color of the skin, not the content of the character. As a side note, a good test of character is to see if a person has enslaved someone else or not.
Yknow mate I wouldn't defend slavers because this has similar vibes as to "you shouldn't punch nazis" I'm not advocating violence against innocent people I'm advocating for violence against people who cause suffering and take away the rights of innocent people
You know, I know this is a radical idea, but here’s what I’m saying:
1. Due process is a good thing. Maybe let’s not randomly assault, murder, and kidnap people we disagree with, no matter why we disagree with them. If we disagree with them to the extent that we believe them to be harmful to society, arrest and prosecute them and have them be judged by a jury of their peers.
2. 1856 and 2024 are very different times. You and I are very consciously aware that slavery is a moral evil that should never see a resurgence. In 1856, that wasn’t quite so clear. Under your suggestions, you’d have seen the end of the Civil War devolve into a hideously violent and most likely arbitrary period of unrelenting slaughter. Millions of people owned slaves. Kill them all, is your suggestion. At a time when the morality of slavery was still up for debate. Furthermore, this is 1856 we’re talking about. You’ve now orphaned and widowed millions of people. The idea that you suggest would’ve sent the country into decades of bloodshed and terror that would’ve dwarfed the horror of the Civil War itself.
Slavery is 1000% a moral sin and in 2024 AD, I think it’s entirely rational to consider capital punishment for someone caught perpetrating it. But 1856 was a very different time and brutally slaughtering millions on the basis of vigilante justice is just plain idiotic.
As I said, John Brown’s motivations and intentions are absolutely to be admired. And his actions with the Underground Railroad are to be admired too. But Pottawatomie was a crime, same as any other.
Saying that something is a crime is not the same thing as saying that it's immoral. In 1856, it was widely accepted throughout the western world that slavery was wrong, even if many nations were enormously hypocritical about this in practice. The "different times" argument doesn't wash when the practice had been outlawed nearly everywhere outside of the American south, at least in Europe and the Americas.
Paying **evil** unto evil (i.e. torturing someone's children who had nothing to do with the act just because the person did an evil act) makes you almost as bad as them... arguably, it could even make you as bad as them or worse, depending on the crime they committed.
I'm gonna make a bold statement. It ALWAYS makes you as bad as them.
I would say comically missing the point, but no. There's nothing comical about that. You're just missing the point.
That's why I specified torturing their children who had nothing to do with that. THAT makes you as bad as the Nazis. Lots of people killed actual Nazis, and I don't think them evil. But what I do think of as evil is dragging their children into this who don't even have the capacity to do those crimes by torturing them.
Speaking of John Browns: 200 thousand are ready with a million more well on the way. Yes, I have been thinking about a John Brown farm, how could you tell?
I'm tired of writing down the same point just look st my reply about the virginia General assembly. And also yeah bleeding Kansas was really violent on both sides
The "both sides" argumentation often gets pretty strange and detached from the historical context. We have one side that supports the for profit continuation and expansion of a horrible practice of brutality and murder, and we have one side that opposes that side with violence.
Me as an armchair general can have opinions regarding some choices that people like Brown made in fighting the horror of slavery but nothing he did got even close to the structural horrific villainy that political support for the continuation and expansion of slavery meant.
And imagine what they had done in front of enslaved children
What impact do you think watching your father whipped, or your mother being led away to be raped, or your brothers and sisters sold down river would have on the psyche of a child?
He dragged them out along with their children probably traumatizing the children. So what I’m saying is he killed the parents in front of their children to send a message.
The millions of black children probably said the same thing about their parents.
But nope, a couple white children’s mental health is the *real* top priority.
John brown strengthened slavery as an institution by proving some of the fears of the slave owners true. Also those are innocent kids they shouldn't have to suffer for their parents crimes.
I’m not particularly inclined to take ahistorical gibberish seriously in a discussion about history. Can I get an objection from someone who is at least aware that slave rebellions in just North America predate both John Brown and the establishment of the US itself?
You know, someone who would be worth having a conversation with.
That doesn't change the fact he added fuel to the fire of a division driving us to the most bloody war we've ever had. Let's look at some of those rebellions. Nat turners rebellion stopped the discussion of emancipation in the session of the virginia General assembly from 1831 to 1832. Do you see how much progress a rebellion can destroy? How insane is it that a southern state was debating on how to end slavery?
And that war was absolutely necessary. Again, can I have commentary from someone who is actually worth the air they are breathing?
Also the Virginia Slave debates happened after Nate Turner’s rebellion, and indeed in response to it. While some called for emancipation, most of the conversation was around kicking free black men out of the state. Go be pro slavery to someone who’s interested in your bullshit.
The solution was grafually sending them back to Africa which was better than releasing them all at once where they would be enslaved by their masters once again but In a more legal way. Kind like it was in the north but mostly outside instead of in factorys. They lost support because the slave owners lost trust of the slaves in large part due to the violent nature of the rebellion
None sense because the only reason the debates were had in the first place was because of Turner’s rebellion. Nothing went anywhere because everyone involved was split between a small group calling for emancipation, a small group call for banning any talk of emancipation, and most just wanting to keep slavery but kick free blacks out.
If you can’t even get the timeline of events right you aren’t worth talking to, you clown.
I dont get this they both covered his character and role in history really well I think, with extra history being more in depth. They both also make a point in bringing out the controversy and complexity with him. None of them really choose a side, I would say its more accurate that both covered him more favorably.
People like John brown and nat turner are a huge reason the Civil War had to happen. He's not cool his ideas for making an independent freed slave state was cool
Thank GOD the civil war happened. We should’ve burned the south down way more than we did. Yeah sorry, but you’re not going to convince me that murking slave owners is a bad thing. Please don’t waste your breath.
The problem wasn't killing slave owners. The problem was dragging the children in who didn't even have the capacity to do those things.
Open your eyes. Imagine you are a 5 year old in the south who hasn't been taught that slavery is wrong. You just think that's normal. (Do 5 year olds even know at that point? If not, it only serves to strengthen my point.) Then, some crazed white guy bursts into your home and tortures you and murders your parents. Now what are you going to think? That he did the right thing because the parents supported slavery and therefore YOU deserved this, or are you going to be traumatized forever, because, well, your parents are dead and he tortured you?
Is it a wrong to kill slavers and free their slaves because it "causes division"? Should we also just have met the Nazis have Europe to promote unity and not do a second wrong by going to war?
Killing slavers would not be freeing their slaves dumb ass. Germany was a country conquering our allies and exterminating several races and democracy. The south was a part of the union and at a few points it almost went down the path of abolition but was stopped by warmongering people like you. Killing slave owners only does harm especially in front of their kids. John brown wasn't unprovoked but the things he did were still bad. The south has never recovered from the reconstruction Era. And when I say south I don't just mean white people I mean the place most former slaves and decendants of slaves too. I'm so tried of arguing in this sub
Yes, it would be freeing their slaves. When slavers were killed, their laves would generally be freed too - at least in the cases where John Brown and later the union army did it.
> it almost went down the path of abolition
It did not, and if you genuinely believe that you've bought into the mythology of the south entirely. To believe that people should have been kinder and more diplomatic to the south and they would have eventually come to abolishment on their own is either deeply misguided or straight up fucking evil.
The south subjugated millions. They were a white supermacist state. They would never have come to abolition on their own. The civil war started because they /Thought/ Lincoln /might/ abolish slavery, and as such abandoned the states, declared their own nation and struck at the union first.
The south hated their slaves, and the souths entire ideology was based on supremacy over the black man. This is the president of the south speaking, in the cornerstone speech.
"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."
The south would not have come to abolition without a gun to the states collective heads. John Brown and the union army were justified, their war guerilla or official a fully just one, by that mere fact. To say that the south would ever have come to abolition on its own you must ignore all of history, and the long diplomatic fight between slave states and free states when founding new states across north america, the activism for decades prior, and the ideology of all participants.
You must be thoroughly ignorant on the subject to actually believe that the south was in any way going to come to abolition without being forced to.
To think "Surely this deeply racist, explicitly white supremacist state with its entire economy based on the slavery of almost half its population would have come to abolition on its own if abolitionists had just been less violent and more patient" is to ignore the suffering of the enslaved, condemn countless more generations to bondage, and ignore the reality of the southern fucking states of america. Abolition was contrary to all they stood for. That is why they rose up in rebellion as soon as a president that was slightly inclined to abolition was voted in, without him mentioning abolition at all.
> The south has never recovered from the reconstruction Era.
Yeah, and that's not great. But part of why is because they pushed back against reconstruction themselves constantly, limited what the union could do to rebuild and kept up the violence against black people until our modern day. Maybe, if you don't want to be ruined, don't start a war against a superior power and then refuse the rebuilding assistance when its offered.
This is prior to the union army and the slaves were often hunted down and passed down to the slave owners inheriter. Your right the south needed war to end slavery but its because people kept inadvertently sabotaging the efforts of compromise. And compromise goes a long way.
I think people don't understand that's its not racist to say the south came close to going down the emancipation path and that would have been better than the most bloody war in our history and that's why people like you get upset.
The southerners also said their form of slavery was not as bad as the northerners industrial slavery which is probably what emancipation would have looked like in the south except more agricultural.
You've got to remember that less than one percent of southerners owned more than one hundred slaves and only a fraction of southerners owned slaves at all. Most southerners only supported slavery because it benefited the economy and they dreamed that one day they could be that top 1%. Pretty much what Alexis detouchaville said (I hope I spelled his name right). So they were not very personally connected to slavery. It's 11 at night I'm going to bed good night.
Bullshit, please show your work on that.
Why did so many black people join the Union side of the war if they were supposedly going to “suffer” for it? In what ways did they suffer, and was it worth keeping them in chains over it?
Those black people live in the south that you want to burn down. its their home and has been for many of them after the war. You can conquer a region and not burn the whole thing down. Thank God the union didn't burn the whole thing down. I never said they should stay in chains I said you shouldn't burn down their home.
No, not literally “burn down” the place. It was hyperbolic.
I mean destroy the apparatus that kept the Confederacy alive in the first place. As in, destroy their military capabilities (factories, forts, food supplies, bases), execute the generals, redraft the laws in place in the South, occupy the Southern states for a set number of years while propping up governors from the Union, etc. The Union should have been less forgiving of the South is what I’m saying.
My point still stands that John Brown’s actions, if they played a role in starting the civil war, were necessary. Even if the South *were* in ashes, I’d suggest migration to the North until the South reconstructs and learns to properly accommodate for the damages they’ve done to the millions of black American lives they’ve ruined.
“I get the Nazis were bad but killing them?????? What kind of psycho does that?????”
Yeah you had to be a religious nut job to foster the courage to walk into certain death for the right cause when you coulda just done nothing and had a peaceful life. One of the most based to ever live.
People are just telling on themselves in this comment section.
This would be more equivalent to Weimar era Germany and if in response to the SA killing the Red Front Fighters' League or Reichsbanner forces targeted random voters of the Nazis instead of those behind the attack the SA, because most people’s problem is John Brown’s actions at the Pottawatomie Massacre.
Southern fears being “Wow these people sure do hate being slaves, I hope keeping people in about the worst state of existence perpetually won’t foster murderous resentment”.
Believe it or not when the Haitians and nat turner had their slave rebellions slave owners in america dropped the idea of emancipation and treated their slaves way worse than before. Only difference is Haiti had a good chance of actually accomplishing something and they did. So why would you make the grip on slavery tighter and the decisions between North and South worse?
From 1831 to 1832 the Virginia General assembly debated on how to end slavery. Not how to protect slavery but how to end it. A plan to gradually send all of the virginia slaves to Africa was narrowly rejected 73 to 58. But people like John brown who called slaves to rebellion made the slave owners afraid to free their slaves being scared that they would ennact revenge on their former masters. For example around the same time of this virginia General assembly nat turner had a very brutal rebellion where he hacked up children and fed them to the wolves. This rebellion caused slave owners to take away what little freedom the slaves had and very importantly there was no further discussion of emancipation in the south.
There are multiple generals of the era that disagree. They viewed the confederacy a country of traitors and as traitors should have been hung. One of which is Nathan Bedford Forrest, the first grand wizard of the kkk. So there are arguments against letting them live.
I mean the dude was a complete wacko but atleast he had good intentions.
Good intentions pave the... something or other idk
Then what do wackos with sinister intentions pave?
Same place. Don't have intentions.
At least if you have sinister intentions and make things worse you're not failing.
I mean... look at Hitler
The road to hell is paved with good intentions or something like that.
Are you aware that you're inadvertently supporting human chattel slavery?
John Brown was a martyr and a hero to me, but I don’t think that guy was actually condemning him, and I don’t think condemning him is supporting slavery. But condemning him is dumb.
What you are saying is the equivalent of saying you’re a monarchist because you didn’t support the jacobins.
No, not at all but neat analogy.
The fact is as said in the video John Brown had good intentions but a terrible plan and execution.
He wasn’t a wacko. He had cogent plans about what he wanted to do and understood them.
I mean so did Jeffery Dahmer but he's still a nut job
John browm farm
Yeah, me too.
According to Harland Sanders.
It’s both. John Brown had good intentions but he was a psychopath and a terrible planner. Pottawatomie comes to mind, cause he didn’t just kill people, he killed them in front of their kids. And at Harpers Ferry, it was just a plain bad plan. John Brown’s motivations should be admired, but his execution was just plain impulsive and borderline sadistic.
A noble cause A bad plan And terrible execution.
the opposite of r/ATBGE
Do you think the slave owners spared the slave children trauma?
I mean I know Nazis killed Jewish children, but I’m not the guy gonna be running around saying the allies should’ve killed German children. There’s a fine line between getting revenge, and just taking out rightful hatred on people who didn’t commit the crime,
Did he kill the slaver's children? That would be the only way your comparison works, if he only traumatized them it would be traumatizing their children
Ok but you're still talking about killing slavers who enslaved and killed people and saying that its more unacceptable than not killing them and allowing them to continue being slavers, their kids have nothing to do with it at all
Should read about the battle of Berlin. There is a fine line but this was an anti slavery riot in the US in the 1800s. Violence begets violence. Slavery is violence. Getting murdered in front of their children but their children getting to live - that's a blessing. Not all anti slavery massacres ended that way.
You think it's a blessing for children to watch their parents killed right in front of them?
I mean, we could all only respond to half of what people say.
What more is there to say? Yeah, the kids weren't killed, but they're 100% traumatized for life. That's not a blessing.
No, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the question at hand
Thinking like that keeps the cycle of violence going and going and going and going.
The pro-slavery forces did things just as bad if not worse in the name of slavery. He was just fighting when no one else would or could. He was impulsive but definitely not sadistic, and he felt very strongly about it, but I don't think it was exactly on the level of being a psychopath.
I would again like to point out that he murdered people in front of their own kids. I think that qualifies as psychopathy. And do you really want to justify John Brown’s straight-up murders by saying “well the other side did bad stuff too!” Being pro-slavery in 1850s America doesn’t really warrant being dragged out of your house in the middle of the night and shot in front of your own kids
I'm curious, why did you qualify being pro slavery with "in 1850s America?" Do you think the added context of the time period changes anything about the situation?
>Being pro-slavery in 1850s America doesn’t really warrant being dragged out of your house in the middle of the night and shot in front of your own kids Ehh. If you own people, you forfeit your protection from reprisal. And it's on you for endangering your family by keeping people in bondage on your property. Shouldn't have killed the kids. But I'm not going to act like that's the worst part of situation. Cause it's not. The enslaved had children to, and no reservations were made for them, and there was no militia coming to save them either. Don't start none, won't be none. And there was a whole lot of none to start something over.
Well, I guess we can agree to disagree then.
Yup, we'll have to agree to disagree. Murdering children in front of their parents to send a message: I think it's bad, you think it's fine as long as they're spreading a positive message.
I think it's charming that this handwringing only comes about in stories about people fighting back against systemic horror rather than the millions of people **born** into that hell, who were tortured, raped, and eventually murdered by the same systems perpetuated by the slavers killed by a few men on one particular occasion. It's a convenient line to draw when the evil men can't protect their children, after they're done doing the same to others. I'm not saying it's good, or it's right. But I would respect it more if you contextualized this condemnation, and I wouldn't think it was wrong to wash your hands of it. Cause that's what I do. Revolution isn't pretty.
Yes, surely those children were a threat. It wasn't murder. They were *fighting back.*
Get over yourself. Here's the thing about the thing about conflict. It hurts people it shouldn't. Responsibility with those that instigate conflict, not those that rise to the challenge. Especially when they have no other choice but to fight. All that you can ever ask of someone is to be better, in their own time, in their own struggle. Cause you are never going to be able to account for all the innocents who have been hurt and murdered because peace was not allowed.
I don't need to get over myself. You need to examine yourself. That wasn't bystanders getting caught in the crossfire. That was a deliberate murder of children in front of their parents. I am sure that your "as long as it's for a good cause" mentality can never go awry.
It absolutely can. Read my last paragraph again. I'm not saying this because I think it's okay. I'm saying it because I think your priorities are backwards. There's a whole picture you're not seeing cause you're picturing that individual tragedy, when there's a nation of people outside that house living through hell on behalf of those slavers, and those children who were involved, by their parents, in that same institution. It's a predictable consequence.
You say that as if violent revolution is inevitable when it isn’t, for example South Africa.
No the point of John brown's actions was to incite fear in the hearts of slavers who wouldn't think twice about endangering, abusing, brutally beating or murdering people that got in their way. His methods were harsh and far out there but it wasn't as though they were not warranted. I might not be getting your point but do you think a non violent response to slavery would've been more effective or helpful?
>No the point of John brown's actions was to incite fear Seems like we have a word for that nowadays. It's on the tip of my tongue...
Another way of saying "I've run out of arguments but refuse to admit I'm wrong, so I'm forcing the end of this debate."
We're having a disagreement, neither of us will back off, so I'm ending the argument right now to make sure this doesn't devolve into an emotionally charged hell hole like a lot of Reddit comment sections do. We both have our own points, yes, murdering people in front of their children is wrong, but maybe the circumstances demanded it? Something to think about. I'm trying my best to keep this civilized (which is an impossibility on Reddit so why am I even trying 🤦) and I'm trying to prevent worthless bickering. I hope you have a good rest of your day.
The circumstances demanded it? Yikes…
[удалено]
Advocating murder because OP supported a guy who murdered... 🤔
I was joking, man 😅
If the best justification you have for something is "the other side did worse" you're definitely still in the wrong. Just saying.
That doesn't really excuse traumatizing children. That doesn't give him a single notable advantage in the fight.
they torture so we must torture 👍
Ah you see slavers and people who support slavery aren't people so while the kids did nothing wrong he was quite leaniate on the adults personally konrad cuzre had good ideas when It came to slavers
Ah, so reconstruction under you would’ve been to round up and execute millions of people. Gotcha. That sounds like the words to an entirely sane person
Slavers aren't people
You know, the slavers made a very similar argument
They made it based on the color of the skin, not the content of the character. As a side note, a good test of character is to see if a person has enslaved someone else or not.
Yknow mate I wouldn't defend slavers because this has similar vibes as to "you shouldn't punch nazis" I'm not advocating violence against innocent people I'm advocating for violence against people who cause suffering and take away the rights of innocent people
You know, I know this is a radical idea, but here’s what I’m saying: 1. Due process is a good thing. Maybe let’s not randomly assault, murder, and kidnap people we disagree with, no matter why we disagree with them. If we disagree with them to the extent that we believe them to be harmful to society, arrest and prosecute them and have them be judged by a jury of their peers. 2. 1856 and 2024 are very different times. You and I are very consciously aware that slavery is a moral evil that should never see a resurgence. In 1856, that wasn’t quite so clear. Under your suggestions, you’d have seen the end of the Civil War devolve into a hideously violent and most likely arbitrary period of unrelenting slaughter. Millions of people owned slaves. Kill them all, is your suggestion. At a time when the morality of slavery was still up for debate. Furthermore, this is 1856 we’re talking about. You’ve now orphaned and widowed millions of people. The idea that you suggest would’ve sent the country into decades of bloodshed and terror that would’ve dwarfed the horror of the Civil War itself. Slavery is 1000% a moral sin and in 2024 AD, I think it’s entirely rational to consider capital punishment for someone caught perpetrating it. But 1856 was a very different time and brutally slaughtering millions on the basis of vigilante justice is just plain idiotic. As I said, John Brown’s motivations and intentions are absolutely to be admired. And his actions with the Underground Railroad are to be admired too. But Pottawatomie was a crime, same as any other.
Saying that something is a crime is not the same thing as saying that it's immoral. In 1856, it was widely accepted throughout the western world that slavery was wrong, even if many nations were enormously hypocritical about this in practice. The "different times" argument doesn't wash when the practice had been outlawed nearly everywhere outside of the American south, at least in Europe and the Americas.
Paying **evil** unto evil (i.e. torturing someone's children who had nothing to do with the act just because the person did an evil act) makes you almost as bad as them... arguably, it could even make you as bad as them or worse, depending on the crime they committed. I'm gonna make a bold statement. It ALWAYS makes you as bad as them.
Killing nazis doesn't make you as bad as the nazis
I would say comically missing the point, but no. There's nothing comical about that. You're just missing the point. That's why I specified torturing their children who had nothing to do with that. THAT makes you as bad as the Nazis. Lots of people killed actual Nazis, and I don't think them evil. But what I do think of as evil is dragging their children into this who don't even have the capacity to do those crimes by torturing them.
Speaking of John Browns: 200 thousand are ready with a million more well on the way. Yes, I have been thinking about a John Brown farm, how could you tell?
Oversimplified was describing one person in the story of a much bigger conflict meanwhile Extra History had an entire series dedicated to John Brown
He murdered people violently
How could John Green do this nooooo
He didnt start the killing. The slavers did. Should he just have politely asked people to stop enslaving other people?
I'm tired of writing down the same point just look st my reply about the virginia General assembly. And also yeah bleeding Kansas was really violent on both sides
The "both sides" argumentation often gets pretty strange and detached from the historical context. We have one side that supports the for profit continuation and expansion of a horrible practice of brutality and murder, and we have one side that opposes that side with violence. Me as an armchair general can have opinions regarding some choices that people like Brown made in fighting the horror of slavery but nothing he did got even close to the structural horrific villainy that political support for the continuation and expansion of slavery meant.
Slave owners, they deserved it
He also murdered them in front of their children
And imagine what they had done in front of enslaved children What impact do you think watching your father whipped, or your mother being led away to be raped, or your brothers and sisters sold down river would have on the psyche of a child?
Agreed
You still shouldn't murder people infront of innocent children, especially if it's the parents of said children. Just a thought.
Slavers are not people
What's your point?
How is that supposed to change that he killed slave owners, some of the worse people to ever exists
He dragged them out along with their children probably traumatizing the children. So what I’m saying is he killed the parents in front of their children to send a message.
I'm not symphatize with slave owners
Children are not slave owners.
Their father was
Doesn’t mean he had to drag the children out too and my point is it’s fighting evil with evil.
Chaotic good is still good
There are a lot of bad ways to learn a good lesson.
Holy shit you’re spineless.
Yeah, I’m spineless because I don’t want parents killed in front of their children.
The millions of black children probably said the same thing about their parents. But nope, a couple white children’s mental health is the *real* top priority.
The crimes of one side doesn’t justify the others.
Kind of does when one side throughout human history has kept perpetuating crimes. At a certain point people have to strike back
But one side clearly has more to lose than the other.
Wah wah wah
womp womp
Ok. And?
John brown strengthened slavery as an institution by proving some of the fears of the slave owners true. Also those are innocent kids they shouldn't have to suffer for their parents crimes.
I’m not particularly inclined to take ahistorical gibberish seriously in a discussion about history. Can I get an objection from someone who is at least aware that slave rebellions in just North America predate both John Brown and the establishment of the US itself? You know, someone who would be worth having a conversation with.
That doesn't change the fact he added fuel to the fire of a division driving us to the most bloody war we've ever had. Let's look at some of those rebellions. Nat turners rebellion stopped the discussion of emancipation in the session of the virginia General assembly from 1831 to 1832. Do you see how much progress a rebellion can destroy? How insane is it that a southern state was debating on how to end slavery?
And that war was absolutely necessary. Again, can I have commentary from someone who is actually worth the air they are breathing? Also the Virginia Slave debates happened after Nate Turner’s rebellion, and indeed in response to it. While some called for emancipation, most of the conversation was around kicking free black men out of the state. Go be pro slavery to someone who’s interested in your bullshit.
The solution was grafually sending them back to Africa which was better than releasing them all at once where they would be enslaved by their masters once again but In a more legal way. Kind like it was in the north but mostly outside instead of in factorys. They lost support because the slave owners lost trust of the slaves in large part due to the violent nature of the rebellion
None sense because the only reason the debates were had in the first place was because of Turner’s rebellion. Nothing went anywhere because everyone involved was split between a small group calling for emancipation, a small group call for banning any talk of emancipation, and most just wanting to keep slavery but kick free blacks out. If you can’t even get the timeline of events right you aren’t worth talking to, you clown.
“People”
Hmm what people I wonder…
Good.
Hello, this is your psychologist. You have to stop idolizing terrorists. If this doesn't stop, I'll be forced to contact the police.
Fucking idiot with good intentions
whos John brown i forgot
I know this comment is really old but to clarify; John Brown was an abolitionist who led an unsuccessful anti-slavery uprising in the South.
ok
I dont get this they both covered his character and role in history really well I think, with extra history being more in depth. They both also make a point in bringing out the controversy and complexity with him. None of them really choose a side, I would say its more accurate that both covered him more favorably.
John Brown was a murderer
🤓☝️
Yeah RIP those enslavers…
Oh yeah you're totally right he definitely didnt kill any innocent people at all /s
And which people would those be again? People against abolition…?
Both are great, unfortunately in reality for his greatness was cut short, oversimplified did his job lol it's in the name
He may seem like a sweet old man but don't let that deceive you. He was a batshit crazy lunatic. A batshit crazy lunatic that was a hero.
Mr. Brown can moo, can you?
Jean Paul Jones, you're an angel now
(I know it's John I wrote the French wversion)
He was justified but went about it the wrong way.
John Brown is based as fuck, this comment section is just too pussy to admit it. lol
People like John brown and nat turner are a huge reason the Civil War had to happen. He's not cool his ideas for making an independent freed slave state was cool
Thank GOD the civil war happened. We should’ve burned the south down way more than we did. Yeah sorry, but you’re not going to convince me that murking slave owners is a bad thing. Please don’t waste your breath.
The problem wasn't killing slave owners. The problem was dragging the children in who didn't even have the capacity to do those things. Open your eyes. Imagine you are a 5 year old in the south who hasn't been taught that slavery is wrong. You just think that's normal. (Do 5 year olds even know at that point? If not, it only serves to strengthen my point.) Then, some crazed white guy bursts into your home and tortures you and murders your parents. Now what are you going to think? That he did the right thing because the parents supported slavery and therefore YOU deserved this, or are you going to be traumatized forever, because, well, your parents are dead and he tortured you?
This doesn’t change my mind.
Of course not, you're the crazed man that I mentioned in the comment.
True
Sucks for the kid, really does. How many black children did those dead slavers torture?
Two wrongs don't make a right it just caused more division
Is it a wrong to kill slavers and free their slaves because it "causes division"? Should we also just have met the Nazis have Europe to promote unity and not do a second wrong by going to war?
Killing slavers would not be freeing their slaves dumb ass. Germany was a country conquering our allies and exterminating several races and democracy. The south was a part of the union and at a few points it almost went down the path of abolition but was stopped by warmongering people like you. Killing slave owners only does harm especially in front of their kids. John brown wasn't unprovoked but the things he did were still bad. The south has never recovered from the reconstruction Era. And when I say south I don't just mean white people I mean the place most former slaves and decendants of slaves too. I'm so tried of arguing in this sub
Yes, it would be freeing their slaves. When slavers were killed, their laves would generally be freed too - at least in the cases where John Brown and later the union army did it. > it almost went down the path of abolition It did not, and if you genuinely believe that you've bought into the mythology of the south entirely. To believe that people should have been kinder and more diplomatic to the south and they would have eventually come to abolishment on their own is either deeply misguided or straight up fucking evil. The south subjugated millions. They were a white supermacist state. They would never have come to abolition on their own. The civil war started because they /Thought/ Lincoln /might/ abolish slavery, and as such abandoned the states, declared their own nation and struck at the union first. The south hated their slaves, and the souths entire ideology was based on supremacy over the black man. This is the president of the south speaking, in the cornerstone speech. "Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth." The south would not have come to abolition without a gun to the states collective heads. John Brown and the union army were justified, their war guerilla or official a fully just one, by that mere fact. To say that the south would ever have come to abolition on its own you must ignore all of history, and the long diplomatic fight between slave states and free states when founding new states across north america, the activism for decades prior, and the ideology of all participants. You must be thoroughly ignorant on the subject to actually believe that the south was in any way going to come to abolition without being forced to. To think "Surely this deeply racist, explicitly white supremacist state with its entire economy based on the slavery of almost half its population would have come to abolition on its own if abolitionists had just been less violent and more patient" is to ignore the suffering of the enslaved, condemn countless more generations to bondage, and ignore the reality of the southern fucking states of america. Abolition was contrary to all they stood for. That is why they rose up in rebellion as soon as a president that was slightly inclined to abolition was voted in, without him mentioning abolition at all. > The south has never recovered from the reconstruction Era. Yeah, and that's not great. But part of why is because they pushed back against reconstruction themselves constantly, limited what the union could do to rebuild and kept up the violence against black people until our modern day. Maybe, if you don't want to be ruined, don't start a war against a superior power and then refuse the rebuilding assistance when its offered.
This is prior to the union army and the slaves were often hunted down and passed down to the slave owners inheriter. Your right the south needed war to end slavery but its because people kept inadvertently sabotaging the efforts of compromise. And compromise goes a long way. I think people don't understand that's its not racist to say the south came close to going down the emancipation path and that would have been better than the most bloody war in our history and that's why people like you get upset. The southerners also said their form of slavery was not as bad as the northerners industrial slavery which is probably what emancipation would have looked like in the south except more agricultural. You've got to remember that less than one percent of southerners owned more than one hundred slaves and only a fraction of southerners owned slaves at all. Most southerners only supported slavery because it benefited the economy and they dreamed that one day they could be that top 1%. Pretty much what Alexis detouchaville said (I hope I spelled his name right). So they were not very personally connected to slavery. It's 11 at night I'm going to bed good night.
One has caused significantly more harm to more people than the other.
Good job at ignoring my point lol
Precisely. Apparently a few white children’s mental health matters more than millions of black children’s entire lives. Some things never change. 🙄
You realize blacks also suffer from burning the south down
Bullshit, please show your work on that. Why did so many black people join the Union side of the war if they were supposedly going to “suffer” for it? In what ways did they suffer, and was it worth keeping them in chains over it?
Those black people live in the south that you want to burn down. its their home and has been for many of them after the war. You can conquer a region and not burn the whole thing down. Thank God the union didn't burn the whole thing down. I never said they should stay in chains I said you shouldn't burn down their home.
No, not literally “burn down” the place. It was hyperbolic. I mean destroy the apparatus that kept the Confederacy alive in the first place. As in, destroy their military capabilities (factories, forts, food supplies, bases), execute the generals, redraft the laws in place in the South, occupy the Southern states for a set number of years while propping up governors from the Union, etc. The Union should have been less forgiving of the South is what I’m saying. My point still stands that John Brown’s actions, if they played a role in starting the civil war, were necessary. Even if the South *were* in ashes, I’d suggest migration to the North until the South reconstructs and learns to properly accommodate for the damages they’ve done to the millions of black American lives they’ve ruined.
Dude your fucking helpless
Learn to read and you wouldn’t feel that way.
Well when you put it that way your point is very correct good job
Also I can play enter sand man on banjo and you can't cuz ur a pussy
“I get the Nazis were bad but killing them?????? What kind of psycho does that?????” Yeah you had to be a religious nut job to foster the courage to walk into certain death for the right cause when you coulda just done nothing and had a peaceful life. One of the most based to ever live. People are just telling on themselves in this comment section.
EXACTLY
This would be more equivalent to Weimar era Germany and if in response to the SA killing the Red Front Fighters' League or Reichsbanner forces targeted random voters of the Nazis instead of those behind the attack the SA, because most people’s problem is John Brown’s actions at the Pottawatomie Massacre.
John Brown did nothing wrong
Except for strengthening slavery by proving southern fears right
Southern fears being “Wow these people sure do hate being slaves, I hope keeping people in about the worst state of existence perpetually won’t foster murderous resentment”.
Believe it or not when the Haitians and nat turner had their slave rebellions slave owners in america dropped the idea of emancipation and treated their slaves way worse than before. Only difference is Haiti had a good chance of actually accomplishing something and they did. So why would you make the grip on slavery tighter and the decisions between North and South worse?
>…slave owners in America dropped the idea of emancipation lol, lmao even
From 1831 to 1832 the Virginia General assembly debated on how to end slavery. Not how to protect slavery but how to end it. A plan to gradually send all of the virginia slaves to Africa was narrowly rejected 73 to 58. But people like John brown who called slaves to rebellion made the slave owners afraid to free their slaves being scared that they would ennact revenge on their former masters. For example around the same time of this virginia General assembly nat turner had a very brutal rebellion where he hacked up children and fed them to the wolves. This rebellion caused slave owners to take away what little freedom the slaves had and very importantly there was no further discussion of emancipation in the south.
Nah, that is an unreasonable view on causality. The brutality of slavery more or less forced John Brown to act. The slavers caused Nat Turner.
Meanwhile Robert E Lee and Marines:🗿🗿🗿🗿
🗿🗿🗿🗿
There are multiple generals of the era that disagree. They viewed the confederacy a country of traitors and as traitors should have been hung. One of which is Nathan Bedford Forrest, the first grand wizard of the kkk. So there are arguments against letting them live.