John Brown killed 50 gorillion people after eating up all the grain in Kansas with his big spoon 
This guy is semi-notable on Twitter. He's best known for being kicked off a somewhat successful podcast for being a creep.
John Brown killed 50 gorillion people after eating up all the grain in Kansas with his big spoon
This guy is semi-notable on Twitter. He's best known for being kicked off a somewhat successful podcast for being a creep.
Lmao blaming John Brown for the civil war is both extremely stupid and defending slavery.
Once again, it’s a very lucky coincidence that the “party of personal responsibility” is never personally responsible for anything ever.
They're personally responsible for everything they've done wrong, and it's just so happens that they never do anything wrong. That's how you know they're good people. If they weren't, they'd be punishing themselves.
Reactionary Rule Number One - Never let your own bullets hit you in the face.
The ears are fair game though
It's not too unreasonable and this is an argument that Norm Finkelstein has made when discussing Al Aqsa Flood. Nat Turner's rebellion was an important inspiration for John Brown, then the Harper's Ferry Raid led pretty directly to the initial events of the Civil War. But acting like it's somehow a bad thing that the American Civil War happened is the most liberal ahistorical take on American history ever. What were slaves supposed to do? Vote?
The ambient fear of a national slave revolt was one Confederate leadership was obsessed with, despite the fact that these slave rebellions were extremely rare and never successful. Harper's Ferry was a kind-of 9/11 of its era, because it brought the ahem Sum of All Fears to this sudden realization. And the fact that it fell flat practically overnight didn't matter. It set of a wave of Bad Vibes (by way of mass media) that rocked the Southern States by forcing leaders to acknowledge the degree to which their institution was openly reviled. The governors of the Dixie States revolted under the naive assumption that they could quench the flames of abolitionism by crushing the northern states in a military conflict.
Harper's Ferry became a rallying point for the Republican electoralists. And it likely helped mobilize support for Lincoln as a populist candidate by making the end of slavery look like a thing that was possible. But it didn't cause the Civil War, simply because it was one of the early dominoes to fall. It was merely a symptom of the disease that was slavery. In the same way that 9/11 was Blowback from half a century of American militarism and regime change in the Middle East.
The cause of the Civil War was slavery and all the events leading up to the war were also the result of slavery. It would be more accurate to say that slavery caused The Harper's Ferry Raid than that the Raid caused the War.
Obviously, they were supposed to earn their freedom by working so hard that slavery went away on its own.
"John Brown's body is rotting in the grave; his soul is marching on!"
People who try to claim the civil war wasn't about slavery are fools or liars. The Union Marching song directly stated that the union army was the sword of an angry god coming down on the slavers in the name of freedom.
-"As ye deal with my condemners, so with you My grace shall deal!
People will tell you to your face that the war was about secular economics or some shit. I'm sure the haute boug thought that, but the normal people who volunteered and marched south with guns and uniforms they bought with their own money were on a holy crusade against evil.
deleted by creator
I remember singing that song/hymn in church as a kid. Though I think the lyric was changed to "let us live to make men free".
Yes
Every 3/5 counts!
Yeah I guess I was more saying blaming Brown instead of slavers
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
been said but the harper's ferry raid was interesting because the second it got on the telegraph wire that it was happening/happened, journalists flocked and the coverage became a huge story, and that as an event/news cycle likely spurred on the civil war in a big way lol.
Like it galvanized radical abolitionists and moderates alike, it spooked the shit out of the southern aristocracy. Both doubled down in response, the conditions for the civil war were laid
it's an interesting cause and effect. It's also nowhere close to the only cause, but it kind of was the straw that broke the camel.
edit: it's kind of weird to think about if it hadn't happened the way it did. What if it hadn't been covered in the same way? What if it was an obscure blip in west virginian history? Would we have gotten the war? would the outcome have been the same? would slavery have ended without the civil war? when? what would the post-emancipation landscape look like?
no good answers, all speculative, but it's weirdly important as an event imo. It gets silo'd off as this sort of separate prelude, but it's kind of way more important than that. John Brown and his sons are literally created martyrs and its weird. it's real weird.
Pretty sure the civil war still would have happened, the contradiction between the southern slaver capitalists and the northern industrial capitalists had sharpened to the point that it could only be resolved by armed conflict.
big "communists killed millions of german soldiers in the 1940s" energy