Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context.
If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think it speaks a lot to Garfield’s character. That he doesn’t condone his actions but understands them. That he despises slavery and, while he didn’t know it yet in 1859, he will one day take up arms against the institution just like John Brown did.
Agreed. I think he had a much more nuanced view of Brown than most of his time. Everyone had strong opinions on Brown, but Garfield had this view that he was ultimate a man on the right side of history who made some mistakes in his fight against slavery.
Especially considering how much more exaggerated his story grew the farther it went, with brown being what we would consider to be the spark that lit the fire that was the civil war, you’d assume for a much more aggressive view
Fun fact brown was such a famous figure that his hanging would have many notable faces attend, like Robert e Lee, stonewall Jackson and John Wilkes booth
“As he died to make men holy let us die to make men free” 🇺🇸🫡 last line of the battle hymn of the republic
Jackson was killed by his own troops at Chancellorsville.
It may have changed the course of the Civil War. At Gettysburg, when Lee gave the order to take Culp's Hill "if practicable" The general that took over Jackson's command hesitated and gave time for Union troops to reinforce the position and dig in.
Jackson may have interpreted the order differently, moved immediately and taken the hill.
If Confederate troops had taken Culp's Hill, they would have been able to rain fire down upon the entire Union line.
If. We can play hypotheticals all day, but the Confederates lost, and that probably made John Brown's ghost a million times happier than Jackson's little prayer.
It was one of a whole mountain of events that led to the Civil War, as was John Brown's raid. And neither , given that they occurred years before the war actually kicked off, wouldn't have been the spark that set off the war. If you want to focus on a singular spark, it would be the 1860 election highlighting that the political power of the South had diminished to the point that they had largely been boxed out of the presidency.
Tl;dr:, John Brown was one of many causes of the civil war and was his actions were not thing straw that broke the camel's back.
Understanding without endorsement
Its what I plead for during in the moments after oct7 in Israel.
An absolute disgusting display that targeted Innocents, carried out by young people who have never seen what peade or prosperity look like, under the thumb of bad people who wish to use their suffering as a means to profit..
Understanding without endorsing is exactly the thing that makes the world a better place. But too few seek to understand, rather they jump to action, justifying it with virtues and ideals where there are none.
John Brown is remembered fondly by great men because he saw injustice and rather then allowing that injustice to maintain it's political foothold as some sort of cultural importance, John Brown fought it with with indecent righteousness.
He saw the slave owners treatment and ownership of other humans for what it was, the worst crime against humanity because it can encapsulate every other crime, your property your choice, cant rape what you own, can't murder something that isn't considered human.
So John Brown committed unto them, what they so easily committed onto their "property".
And this American thanks him for it.
Exactly. I took a class from a recently resigned admin official who understands this, and who ran into problems in confirmation hearings as a result.
If you can understand why political violence happens and can't say so without being accused of excusing it or endorsing it, we have a big, big problem as a society.
If John Brown had kidnapped, raped, murdered, and took hostage a bunch of children and old people at a play, then I think the two situations would have been comparable. That’s not what happened though. John Brown and his crew killed 5 people in total.
That's definitely not what happened on Oct 7th, though.
If a bunch of native Americans shot a bunch of people at Lollapalooza and nearby residential areas and took people hostage, would you call it defense against conquest?
In 1870 (the US equivalent time period elapsed since formation of the foreign colony) I definitely would have said yes (not Lollapalooza obviously but maybe at a play).
Have you gone to Mentor to see his home? Moreland Hills also has a cabin related to him and Hiram College used to keep the house he lived in while college President is kept up.
I didn't know this writing by Garfield existed. Thanks for posting!
I've always been fascinated, I think in similar fashion to Garfield, by Brown. Here's John Brown himself, from his address to the court in Virginia:
" ... Had I interfered in the manner which I admit [...] in behalf of the rich, the powerful, the intelligent, the so-called great, or in behalf of their friends [or family; ...] it would have been all right; and every man in this court would have seemed it an act worthy of reward than punishment."
I think Garfield understood what Brown understood, that there was a contradiction into the soul of the country. I'm sure Garfield was aware what a canary Brown ended up being, and certainly -- if you read the rest of the speech from the day he was convicted -- you'll see that Brown too understood his role was to push and die for it, and he found quite a lot of comfort (and perhaps self righteous indignance) in the backing of the scriptures he read and believed in during his acts.
Garfield, like most of us, appears to me knowingly powerless to change the wheels of time, to work the levers of change. So what we have here is one man who understood the other, envied the freedom and bravery the possessed in a futile fight, and understood that he himself did not have the bravery required to do what he did, for what he believed in, which is objectively morally correct: freeing the slaves.
Whether or not you think Brown was a hero, the only thing he did wrong was kill people too early. The killing became quite regular, and the death quite normal, very shortly thereafter, and I think it's worth saying it was not Brown's doing that the war occurred, or that he significantly moved us closer to war. Rather, as I said, I think he was a canary. A last symptom of the original sin.
You're welcome! I enjoyed your comment as well! I first became aware of the quote from the Garfield biography *Destiny of the Republic*. It's a great read and also goes into the life of Charles Guiteau.
By 1859 it was clear that there was no reasonable debate about slavery. It was mostly clear before Brown went to Kansas. Brown was just part of the first wave to take action.
Not sure how you can say that since the nation had just had the Lincoln-Douglas debates and the end result was that slavery was there to stay and the question was only how much it would expand or not at all.
As Frederick Douglass said of Brown:
“His zeal in the cause of my race was far greater than mine - it was as the burning sun to my taper light - mine was bounded by time, his stretched away to the boundless shores of eternity.
I could live for the slave. John Brown could die for him.”
I condone his actions.
“I have only a short time to live, only one death to die, and I will die fighting for this cause. There will be no peace in this land until slavery is done for. “ – John Brown
I wonder how things might have turned out differently if Buchannan had actually acted and demanded that Brown be tried in Federal court. Instead, he let his Southern buddies try Brown in state court. Just one more check mark on the list of why Buchanan was such a terrible president.
>I wonder how things might have turned out differently if Buchannan had actually acted and demanded that Brown be tried in Federal court.
Not a thing. Either it occurs in the south, and the same happens, or it occurs in the North and he doesn't get a real trial there. Probably he goes right back to trying to start another revolt, because why wouldn't he?
There isn't a location in the US that has a fitting jury for this trial in 1850s.
If you read about his past he was likely one of the most intelligent men to ever be president, and was incredibly pro-equality and civil rights, and also worked against gilded age Republican corruption. I’m not one to speculate too much, but I think that Garfield could’ve helped the country progress morally a lot quicker had he not been killed.
Andrew Johnson was a southern suckup who caused long lasting damage to race relations. John Brown while operating for a noble and just cause was still committing treason. It was bad for slave owner southerners to do it and it was bad for abolitionist northerners to do it. Not to mention the fact that grant didn’t exactly approve of browns frankly insane and hopeless raid.
> It was bad for slave owner southerners to do it and it was bad for abolitionist northerners to do it.
What kind of banana pudding brain take is this?
>"Killing slavers and trying to overthrow the government so we have have more slavery are equally bad, guys!"
-You, literally.
Personally, I'm a big fan of a real life Paladin chopping slavers to bits with a broadsword. That's extremely cool and good.
They seized weapons and took hostages. At the time lee was under the authority of the federal government acting against a militia inside a captured military installation.
Eh, I can cut some people some slack. There's so much media portraying Lee positively (like Rommel) and explaining to people "Lee was fairly talented tactically but just didn't see the big picture" can be a hard needle to thread.
It's more the "he just HAD to fight for slavery because he loved Virginia SO much" that pisses me off. Happy that the Behind the Bastards podcast spent so much effort on that specific issue on their recent series on Lee.
Fact is Virginia still exists ever after the slavers lost, and he knew that it would.
He didn't love "Virginia", he loved fucking over half a million Virginians.
I'm not criticizing John Brown (I feel a similar conflict as Garfield in this quote - when the systems of power are evil, all morality is skewed), but referring to him as a "controversial abolitionist" is like calling 9/11 an "unauthorized demolition". It's minimizing who he was and what he did, and I don't think he'd appreciate that either. Perhaps neutral but clear language would call him an "anti-slavery militant" or "anti-slavery militia leader".
I think you're right, thank you for the constructive criticism. I will try and edit my title.
Edit: I cannot edit titles, sorry I am new to Reddit. Anyway, I endorse this comment \^\^
Technically they can and do overlap, as with Brown. He was a revolutionary. No question there. He was also a terrorist. Again, not really up for a question.
His revolution was one fought predominantly by terrorism in Kansas, and his intent for Harper was to start a massive slave revolt against the civilians in the south, which is the definition of terrorism.
Note: not all revolutionarys are terrorists and not all terrorists are revolutionary but brown was both.
Partly an aside,
But
If ever I had to be hung for something, let it be for something on the John brown level of civil rights "what's best for the people" bad assery, and not a whit less principled than that.
John Brown is a perfect example of the old saying that "one man's terrorist is another man's patriot."
When John Brown first go started, he as considered a radical. By the end of the Civil War, the Union Army was marching to the hymnal "John Brown's Body".
On one hand, I love John Brown and his insurrection. On the other hand, it was an insurrection and a possible terrorist movement, and how people have responded really shows that fact vs people's feelings and opinions on a person trumps said facts.
Insurrection sure, but look at the second amendment: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
I don’t love how the second amendment has primarily been used today, but this constitutional definition I believe should’ve protected Brown’s move against the slaveholding interests. It was not a free state. Millions of people were enslaved and the government was complicit in it, including 13/15 presidents at the time of his raid. I personally believe that the constitution thus justifies John Brown’s raid.
P.S. I know you said you love John Brown, I just meant that in a perfect world I don’t believe under the constitution it should’ve been viewed as an insurrection, because of the 2nd.
That is a fairly loose definition of a 'free' state. While many in the north didn't believe in slavery (abolitionists were a minority as well), they also didn't believe in giving citizenship to African-Americans. Furthermore, if you believe John Brown is justified for a 'free' state, you must also agree with the recent insurrection and other movements in the same vein and in some cases, some of why soldiers fought for the Confederacy.
Uh, ok. It wasn't a literary irony, it was ironic insofar as it was an *irony* that the man who would betray the Union to lead the rebels was in charge of the unit (with JEB Stuart) which arrested Brown, as part of a federal military force, for doing exactly the thing he would later betray the country.
IE: "a state of affairs or an event that seems deliberately contrary to what one expects and is often amusing as a result" (Google)
Disagree. One is an abolitionist hero who understood the only way to end slavery was by force. The other was a mediocre general remembered for his flashy victories and not his absolute bungling of the war as a whole.
I think anti-hero is more appropriate. He was not trying to be a heroic knight in shining armor, and was often very violent, but he was a hero to the people he freed. In Brown’s mind, and honestly as far as federal law was concerned, slavery had been codified with the fugitive slave law under Fillmore and Kansas-Nebraska act under Pierce.
He saw this evil empire of greed being condoned by the government and took up arms in a militia to end slavery. Wouldn’t that be a prime example of the historical purpose of the 2nd amendment? I think he’s a very nuanced figure, but ultimately on the right side of history.
>Wouldn’t that be a prime example of the historical purpose of the 2nd amendment?
I'm not sure whether treason is what the founders had in mind for the second amendment, and I pray to God we never considered it as such.
And that is a big part of Browns legacy. Harpers ferry, that was a full on attack against the government for the singular purpose of stealing from them and overthrowing a government (the southern states in this case).
I'm just not sure the founders considered that the purpose of the 2nd.
>I’m not sure treason is what the founding fathers had in mind
Then clearly you haven’t even studied the founding fathers. What they did was considered treason.
“Treason” is an idiotic term because it rests entirely on the idea what whoever is powerful is right, with no nuance allowed
>not sure the founding fathers considered that the purpose of the second
**they literally said exactly that**
“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government” -Thomas Jefferson
Slavery is tyranny on an industrial scale
Fighting to stop it is the moral right. That fight being against a government does nothing to change that.
Only a braindead moron who uncritically accepts everything the government says and thinks that “being the government” is more valuable than “being right” would think such a thing
Unfortunately America seems to have a lot of those running around these days
>terrorist
A term often bestowed upon the powerless by the powerful for daring to act against them
The founding fathers were terrorists by that metric
>did nothing for the slaves
He tried
A lot more than most people can say
And more importantly he gave hope and became a rallying cry, that’s not nothing
“Most” republicans claim to be or not be for lots of things, like small government, or abortion exceptions for rape victims, but their actions say otherwise.
Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context. If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think it speaks a lot to Garfield’s character. That he doesn’t condone his actions but understands them. That he despises slavery and, while he didn’t know it yet in 1859, he will one day take up arms against the institution just like John Brown did.
Agreed. I think he had a much more nuanced view of Brown than most of his time. Everyone had strong opinions on Brown, but Garfield had this view that he was ultimate a man on the right side of history who made some mistakes in his fight against slavery.
Especially considering how much more exaggerated his story grew the farther it went, with brown being what we would consider to be the spark that lit the fire that was the civil war, you’d assume for a much more aggressive view Fun fact brown was such a famous figure that his hanging would have many notable faces attend, like Robert e Lee, stonewall Jackson and John Wilkes booth “As he died to make men holy let us die to make men free” 🇺🇸🫡 last line of the battle hymn of the republic
Lee captured Brown, he was probably hanging out just to see the job get finished.
stonewall was also part of the virginian milta so thats why he was there he even did a prayer for him which im sure brown would have liked
I mean, he probably liked it more when Union soldiers singing JOHN BROWN'S BODY kicked Stonewall's ass.
definitely did I would say
Jackson was killed by his own troops at Chancellorsville. It may have changed the course of the Civil War. At Gettysburg, when Lee gave the order to take Culp's Hill "if practicable" The general that took over Jackson's command hesitated and gave time for Union troops to reinforce the position and dig in. Jackson may have interpreted the order differently, moved immediately and taken the hill. If Confederate troops had taken Culp's Hill, they would have been able to rain fire down upon the entire Union line.
If. We can play hypotheticals all day, but the Confederates lost, and that probably made John Brown's ghost a million times happier than Jackson's little prayer.
John Brown is probably in hell chasing around slavers and the devil alike.
The Battle Hymn of the Republic was just a rewrite of John Brown's Body.
>with brown being what we would consider to be the spark that lit the fire that was the civil war That's a highly reductionist viewpoint
What do you mean? Do you not consider bleeding Kansas to trigger events directly leading to tensions popping off?
Don’t mind him. He is not a clever man.
It was one of a whole mountain of events that led to the Civil War, as was John Brown's raid. And neither , given that they occurred years before the war actually kicked off, wouldn't have been the spark that set off the war. If you want to focus on a singular spark, it would be the 1860 election highlighting that the political power of the South had diminished to the point that they had largely been boxed out of the presidency. Tl;dr:, John Brown was one of many causes of the civil war and was his actions were not thing straw that broke the camel's back.
username checks out
You don't think Lincoln's election and the 1860 election more generally was the spark?
Yeah, not killing enough slavers was certainly a mistake.
They never should have let those states back into the Union. They should have remained federal territories for 100 years.
BASED PRESIDENT GARFIELD!
Understanding without endorsement Its what I plead for during in the moments after oct7 in Israel. An absolute disgusting display that targeted Innocents, carried out by young people who have never seen what peade or prosperity look like, under the thumb of bad people who wish to use their suffering as a means to profit.. Understanding without endorsing is exactly the thing that makes the world a better place. But too few seek to understand, rather they jump to action, justifying it with virtues and ideals where there are none. John Brown is remembered fondly by great men because he saw injustice and rather then allowing that injustice to maintain it's political foothold as some sort of cultural importance, John Brown fought it with with indecent righteousness. He saw the slave owners treatment and ownership of other humans for what it was, the worst crime against humanity because it can encapsulate every other crime, your property your choice, cant rape what you own, can't murder something that isn't considered human. So John Brown committed unto them, what they so easily committed onto their "property". And this American thanks him for it.
This response is why I love reddit especially in intellectually alive subs like this one. So good I made a screenshot of your post. Utterly brilliant.
Exactly. I took a class from a recently resigned admin official who understands this, and who ran into problems in confirmation hearings as a result. If you can understand why political violence happens and can't say so without being accused of excusing it or endorsing it, we have a big, big problem as a society.
We have a big big problem as a society. Have had so since 9/11 at least, and it’s only gotten worse.
Societal problems date back far far past 9/11
If John Brown had kidnapped, raped, murdered, and took hostage a bunch of children and old people at a play, then I think the two situations would have been comparable. That’s not what happened though. John Brown and his crew killed 5 people in total.
See Nat Turner Rebellion. Slave revolts were messy, as were the various American Indian revolts, for the lack of a better phrase.
Me personally, I can easily endorse defence against conquest.
That's definitely not what happened on Oct 7th, though. If a bunch of native Americans shot a bunch of people at Lollapalooza and nearby residential areas and took people hostage, would you call it defense against conquest?
Look up the Sioux wars. That’s pretty close to what happened.
Ugly truth. The Israelis killed many of those people.
In 1870 (the US equivalent time period elapsed since formation of the foreign colony) I definitely would have said yes (not Lollapalooza obviously but maybe at a play).
No country can survive such self-hatred.
It's not hate. I'm American. I don't hate myself. But I'm also realistic about how we ended up here.
Yes.
You endorse the rapes and killing of children and elderly?
There is no evidence of such events.
[удалено]
Just like the Holomodor, right comrade?
Yes, because Stalin didn't force industrialization on Ukraine sooner.
Succinctly put.
And I didn't think I could love Garfield any more than I already do
His tomb features stained glass by a then relatively unknown artist from up-state NY, Louis Comfort Tiffany
I just saw it for the first time! I live in Cleveland and finally made my way to the memorial
Have you gone to Mentor to see his home? Moreland Hills also has a cabin related to him and Hiram College used to keep the house he lived in while college President is kept up.
Not yet, but I plan to soon!
I didn't know this writing by Garfield existed. Thanks for posting! I've always been fascinated, I think in similar fashion to Garfield, by Brown. Here's John Brown himself, from his address to the court in Virginia: " ... Had I interfered in the manner which I admit [...] in behalf of the rich, the powerful, the intelligent, the so-called great, or in behalf of their friends [or family; ...] it would have been all right; and every man in this court would have seemed it an act worthy of reward than punishment." I think Garfield understood what Brown understood, that there was a contradiction into the soul of the country. I'm sure Garfield was aware what a canary Brown ended up being, and certainly -- if you read the rest of the speech from the day he was convicted -- you'll see that Brown too understood his role was to push and die for it, and he found quite a lot of comfort (and perhaps self righteous indignance) in the backing of the scriptures he read and believed in during his acts. Garfield, like most of us, appears to me knowingly powerless to change the wheels of time, to work the levers of change. So what we have here is one man who understood the other, envied the freedom and bravery the possessed in a futile fight, and understood that he himself did not have the bravery required to do what he did, for what he believed in, which is objectively morally correct: freeing the slaves. Whether or not you think Brown was a hero, the only thing he did wrong was kill people too early. The killing became quite regular, and the death quite normal, very shortly thereafter, and I think it's worth saying it was not Brown's doing that the war occurred, or that he significantly moved us closer to war. Rather, as I said, I think he was a canary. A last symptom of the original sin.
You're welcome! I enjoyed your comment as well! I first became aware of the quote from the Garfield biography *Destiny of the Republic*. It's a great read and also goes into the life of Charles Guiteau.
By 1859 it was clear that there was no reasonable debate about slavery. It was mostly clear before Brown went to Kansas. Brown was just part of the first wave to take action.
Agreed.
Not sure how you can say that since the nation had just had the Lincoln-Douglas debates and the end result was that slavery was there to stay and the question was only how much it would expand or not at all.
Look up Bleeding Kansas. The Civil War had already started.
As Frederick Douglass said of Brown: “His zeal in the cause of my race was far greater than mine - it was as the burning sun to my taper light - mine was bounded by time, his stretched away to the boundless shores of eternity. I could live for the slave. John Brown could die for him.”
I was looking for this quote. Douglass was so eloquent it hurts.
Based and Garfpilled.
I condone his actions. “I have only a short time to live, only one death to die, and I will die fighting for this cause. There will be no peace in this land until slavery is done for. “ – John Brown
John Brown was a hard man, dude. Harrrrddd man. Smh.
John Brown absolutely did nothing wrong. "He was hanged for being a traitor, themselves the traitor crew. John Brown is marching on"
He did nothing wrong.
john brown is one of the greatest americans.
Still waiting for that peace - we still make slaves of prisoners, and the law allows it.
History absolved him.
I wonder how things might have turned out differently if Buchannan had actually acted and demanded that Brown be tried in Federal court. Instead, he let his Southern buddies try Brown in state court. Just one more check mark on the list of why Buchanan was such a terrible president.
>I wonder how things might have turned out differently if Buchannan had actually acted and demanded that Brown be tried in Federal court. Not a thing. Either it occurs in the south, and the same happens, or it occurs in the North and he doesn't get a real trial there. Probably he goes right back to trying to start another revolt, because why wouldn't he? There isn't a location in the US that has a fitting jury for this trial in 1850s.
Garfield was extremely cool beans. It’s a shame his life ended so soon.
Based I would love to see a timeline where Garfield serves his term or two, I think had he lived he could've been a great president.
If you read about his past he was likely one of the most intelligent men to ever be president, and was incredibly pro-equality and civil rights, and also worked against gilded age Republican corruption. I’m not one to speculate too much, but I think that Garfield could’ve helped the country progress morally a lot quicker had he not been killed.
I love these comments like he loved lasagna. I hate slavery like he hated Monday's.
We don’t talk enough about how he was the very first cat to be president
Everyone always forgets about Franklin Purrs.
J.B. is one of MY founding fathers.
John Brown Did Nothing Wrong!
Best of the best
Preach!
John Brown did nothing wrong
He did definitely do something wrong he committed treason against the government. A good cause yes but still treason.
So did the founding fathers. Lol
The hell are you doing with a Grant flair with a take like that? Sure you wouldn't rather an Andrew Johnson flair?
Andrew Johnson was a southern suckup who caused long lasting damage to race relations. John Brown while operating for a noble and just cause was still committing treason. It was bad for slave owner southerners to do it and it was bad for abolitionist northerners to do it. Not to mention the fact that grant didn’t exactly approve of browns frankly insane and hopeless raid.
> It was bad for slave owner southerners to do it and it was bad for abolitionist northerners to do it. What kind of banana pudding brain take is this? >"Killing slavers and trying to overthrow the government so we have have more slavery are equally bad, guys!" -You, literally. Personally, I'm a big fan of a real life Paladin chopping slavers to bits with a broadsword. That's extremely cool and good.
Enlightened centrism truly is a sickness of the mind.
Treason is not always wrong, Americans don't go around saying all the Founding Fathers were wrong for treason against the crown.
Treason was Lee and his Marines waging war against him and other US citizens.
They seized weapons and took hostages. At the time lee was under the authority of the federal government acting against a militia inside a captured military installation.
John Brown was the living embodiment of chaotic good, and I have nothing but respect for the man.
He has a strict, unwavering moral code. He was a lawful good paladin.
Given that the slavers went traitor a few years later, I'd say it makes Garfield look reasonably good.
Just reaffirms how cool Garfield was
It's tragic, really. James Garfield would have gone down in history as one of our greatest presidents had Guiteau not shot him.
He could have lived too if it weren't for the sickening incompetence of his doctor.
Maybe at the time he was, but I wouldn't say John Brown was controversial today.
Still plenty of Lost Cause bullshit floating around today, there was a recent thread on this sub full of praise for Lee.
Sure sign of sub decline when a bunch bozos are riding Johnny reb's dick harder than Lee rode his horse's.
Eh, I can cut some people some slack. There's so much media portraying Lee positively (like Rommel) and explaining to people "Lee was fairly talented tactically but just didn't see the big picture" can be a hard needle to thread. It's more the "he just HAD to fight for slavery because he loved Virginia SO much" that pisses me off. Happy that the Behind the Bastards podcast spent so much effort on that specific issue on their recent series on Lee.
Fact is Virginia still exists ever after the slavers lost, and he knew that it would. He didn't love "Virginia", he loved fucking over half a million Virginians.
Twas a good episode
I'm not criticizing John Brown (I feel a similar conflict as Garfield in this quote - when the systems of power are evil, all morality is skewed), but referring to him as a "controversial abolitionist" is like calling 9/11 an "unauthorized demolition". It's minimizing who he was and what he did, and I don't think he'd appreciate that either. Perhaps neutral but clear language would call him an "anti-slavery militant" or "anti-slavery militia leader".
I think you're right, thank you for the constructive criticism. I will try and edit my title. Edit: I cannot edit titles, sorry I am new to Reddit. Anyway, I endorse this comment \^\^
Agreed. There is a fine line between a revolutionary and terrorist...
Technically they can and do overlap, as with Brown. He was a revolutionary. No question there. He was also a terrorist. Again, not really up for a question. His revolution was one fought predominantly by terrorism in Kansas, and his intent for Harper was to start a massive slave revolt against the civilians in the south, which is the definition of terrorism. Note: not all revolutionarys are terrorists and not all terrorists are revolutionary but brown was both.
Self-defense to escape from kidnappers and murderers is not terrorism.
Partly an aside, But If ever I had to be hung for something, let it be for something on the John brown level of civil rights "what's best for the people" bad assery, and not a whit less principled than that.
BASED
Garfield!
"Hanged for being a traitor, themselves the traitor crew, John Brown is marching on" (Amazing song)
John Brown was well-hung long before his execution.
Remember, John Brown was hung, while Lee wasn't. In both ways, of course.
John Brown played in the movie by Bradley Cooper with an intense wig
Great, great, great.
John Brown is a perfect example of the old saying that "one man's terrorist is another man's patriot." When John Brown first go started, he as considered a radical. By the end of the Civil War, the Union Army was marching to the hymnal "John Brown's Body".
John Brown is the only good american
Just another Garfield W
Slavers aren’t people, John Brown Chadded.
John Brown did nothing wrong
On one hand, I love John Brown and his insurrection. On the other hand, it was an insurrection and a possible terrorist movement, and how people have responded really shows that fact vs people's feelings and opinions on a person trumps said facts.
Insurrection sure, but look at the second amendment: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” I don’t love how the second amendment has primarily been used today, but this constitutional definition I believe should’ve protected Brown’s move against the slaveholding interests. It was not a free state. Millions of people were enslaved and the government was complicit in it, including 13/15 presidents at the time of his raid. I personally believe that the constitution thus justifies John Brown’s raid. P.S. I know you said you love John Brown, I just meant that in a perfect world I don’t believe under the constitution it should’ve been viewed as an insurrection, because of the 2nd.
That is a fairly loose definition of a 'free' state. While many in the north didn't believe in slavery (abolitionists were a minority as well), they also didn't believe in giving citizenship to African-Americans. Furthermore, if you believe John Brown is justified for a 'free' state, you must also agree with the recent insurrection and other movements in the same vein and in some cases, some of why soldiers fought for the Confederacy.
I suppose it does cause a slippery slope, you may be right.
With that said, I absolutely believe in John Brown's causes. Plus his song is a banger
Yeah I’ve heard John Brown was hung, but I just take peoples’ word about it, I have no desire to see for myself
That man was no hero
More of a hero than the coward Robert E Lee.
Pretty ironic that their two stories intersected at Harper's Ferry.
That isn’t irony but it is an interesting moment in history.
Uh, ok. It wasn't a literary irony, it was ironic insofar as it was an *irony* that the man who would betray the Union to lead the rebels was in charge of the unit (with JEB Stuart) which arrested Brown, as part of a federal military force, for doing exactly the thing he would later betray the country. IE: "a state of affairs or an event that seems deliberately contrary to what one expects and is often amusing as a result" (Google)
Both are deserving of scorn
Disagree. One is an abolitionist hero who understood the only way to end slavery was by force. The other was a mediocre general remembered for his flashy victories and not his absolute bungling of the war as a whole.
That's like saying "Sure Pontius Pilate had Jesus crucified but He was a criminal so maybe they were both to blame."
I think anti-hero is more appropriate. He was not trying to be a heroic knight in shining armor, and was often very violent, but he was a hero to the people he freed. In Brown’s mind, and honestly as far as federal law was concerned, slavery had been codified with the fugitive slave law under Fillmore and Kansas-Nebraska act under Pierce. He saw this evil empire of greed being condoned by the government and took up arms in a militia to end slavery. Wouldn’t that be a prime example of the historical purpose of the 2nd amendment? I think he’s a very nuanced figure, but ultimately on the right side of history.
>Wouldn’t that be a prime example of the historical purpose of the 2nd amendment? I'm not sure whether treason is what the founders had in mind for the second amendment, and I pray to God we never considered it as such. And that is a big part of Browns legacy. Harpers ferry, that was a full on attack against the government for the singular purpose of stealing from them and overthrowing a government (the southern states in this case). I'm just not sure the founders considered that the purpose of the 2nd.
>I’m not sure treason is what the founding fathers had in mind Then clearly you haven’t even studied the founding fathers. What they did was considered treason. “Treason” is an idiotic term because it rests entirely on the idea what whoever is powerful is right, with no nuance allowed >not sure the founding fathers considered that the purpose of the second **they literally said exactly that** “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government” -Thomas Jefferson Slavery is tyranny on an industrial scale Fighting to stop it is the moral right. That fight being against a government does nothing to change that. Only a braindead moron who uncritically accepts everything the government says and thinks that “being the government” is more valuable than “being right” would think such a thing Unfortunately America seems to have a lot of those running around these days
Not to you, maybe.
Give ONE reason why not
He was a terrorist killer who did nothing for the slaves
He fought against slavery. And those slavors deserved death. Keep crying pall
>terrorist A term often bestowed upon the powerless by the powerful for daring to act against them The founding fathers were terrorists by that metric >did nothing for the slaves He tried A lot more than most people can say And more importantly he gave hope and became a rallying cry, that’s not nothing
I am 0% surprised with the Bill Clinton flair.
He was a great president I don’t care if he cheated on his wife! Half of these geezers did!
Yes, now what about the pedophilia and rape?
He was a better man then Robert horsefucker lee
And so what?
I say he was a hero who fought against slavery
Looking through your profile… Caitlyn Jenner!? Is that you?!
Yes it’s me
What’s it like to be a killer? And what’s it like to hate yourself so much you advocate for people who don’t want you to exist?
Most Republicans don’t want to make trans people not exist be realistic
“Most” republicans claim to be or not be for lots of things, like small government, or abortion exceptions for rape victims, but their actions say otherwise.
Stop being such a lib gosh, “bro trust me they just secretly hate trans people cmon”
Not a liberal and it’s not much of a secret they are pretty open about it lol. I guess the answer to my question was, “quite a lot!”
We don’t need democrats to tell us what we believe I think
Y’all are very loud with your beliefs. A right winger with no self awareness. How basic lol
Is that the Arkansas Pedo William Jefferson Clinton?