So, the 13th Amendment was not and is not "unconstitutional" because that is what Amendments do - they amend the constitution to improve it and make it better. The Bill of Rights is actually the combination of the first Ten Amendments to the Constitution, for instance. The 13th Amendment abolished slavery; the 14th and 15th gave the right to vote to black men and guaranteed civil rights to African Americans; the 19th gave women the right to vote, etc. As for your persistent view of Brown as a murderer who encouraged slaves to murder slaveholders, I think you are still missing some important historical facts. Brown's zeal was not in killing people, but rather his zeal lay in his passion for freedom for all people. It is necessary to reiterate that slaveholders and their supporters had long waged a murderous war on black people through the institution of slavery. What other motive did Brown need to defend black people's right to freedom than a war on slavery? Lincoln's goal was to keep the Union together. He did not order the first shots fired. He did not advocate secession. Those southerners who seceded and who took up arms against the United States violated the Constitution.
I found your comment that it was up to the slaves themselves to end slavery without a civil war to be strange and terribly uninformed in the extreme. How would that have been possible? Anti-slavery agitation sparked a movement of peoples all over the country who became determined to fulfill the demands of the Declaration of Independence, that all people are created equal. Slave had no power - none, zero. Slaveholders and their supporters had made it very clear they were not about to give up their human property, and the way of life that slavery secured for them, without fighting to the death. The fact that Lincoln knew that slaveholders would not be happy with his stance against expansion shows that Lincoln was on the side of right, but not that he was responsible for Civil War. The efforts on the part of slaveholders to expand slavery into the territories was reprehensible. They chose secession when resistance to their plans was formidable. They chose to fire the first shots. It was time for that heinous institution to end, and the Civil War and millions of pro-freedom people made it possible. Four million enslaved people and millions of anti-slavery supporters were terribly happy that it did.

Thanks Kate. I find John Brown a difficult person to understand. His actions in Kansas and at Harpers Ferry have been hard to balance with the passion/desire of freedom for all people.

Had I been a southerner then, I would also be greatly concerned that many in the north were not appalled by his actions.
Was there much of an outcry or public disapproval of his actions by any leading politicians or religious leaders in the north

Kate, even if the slaves had somehow (how???) freed themselves, how should they have made it to make freedom constitutional? In the end I think there was no silver bullet to end slavery at that point in time, v.v., enlarging the system into the territories would have worsened the outlook for the enslaved, delaying freedom into a farther away future. Waiting for Godot (never to come) would have certainly not been the silver bullet, nor John Brown-like private guerilla warfare. I don't think Lincoln had any stances against the south others than that he didn't approve of slavery (which is most understandable IMO).

The 13th amendment was passed at the end of the Civil War before the Southern states had been restored to the Union. How did the southerners violate the Constitution by seceding? They only joined the Union in the first place, on the condition that the Constitution recognize the legality of slavery. If Lincoln and the Northerners were so appalled by slavery, why did they even want the Southerners to be part of the Union? And why, after the Civil War, did the Radical Republicans quickly lose interest in the plight of the freed slaves? It wasn't for another 100 years or so before black people began to have anything resembling equal rights and equal opportunity anywhere in the country.

I did not say it was up to the slaves themselves to end slavery without a civil war. Please reread what I wrote, which is based on the information in your posts. I said that the only chance of slavery ending without a civil war, was if the slaves themselves, with the help of sympathetic free people, attempt to make a bid for their own freedom. Of course they could not do it all on their own. Really, to suggest that I am THAT uninformed is just plain disrespectful.

How many sympathetic free people were there willing to actively help versus the "benefits" and interests on the other side? Enough? Quite a lot of people are too convenient to care much about others' fate as long as not directly concerned, then as now. And also in the north there were those fearing the slaves to be freed.

Brown's actions were universally denounced in the North, even by most abolitionists. And all but two of the Secret Six denied any role in it (Higginson and Parker.) So the outcry and disapproval was profound and loud. But Brown's dignity throughout the quick trial and his hanging restored some of the admiration that some of his supporters had lost. Initially, the idea that he was a lone madman soothed some slaveholders, and northerners were quick to deny that there was a "Northern conspiracy." Some abolitionists, however, thought Brown was incredibly brave, and they refused to label him a madman. (Thoreau, etc.). But they were a very small group in the beginning. They wanted the dialogue to refocus on slavery. And they agreed with Brown that he was not insane - Brown rejected that plea outright, demanding he be hanged as soon as possible. His demeanor, courage, bravery, and eloquent speeches from jail belied the claim that he was insane. These few abolitionists were able to eventually convince many Northerners of Brown's righteous plan - that he followed a higher law, that God was on his side to end slavery. The trial gave Brown a chance to remind Americans what they were supposed to stand for - liberty and justice for all. He used his great command of the Bible, and spoke in powerful biblical terms - he used incredible imagery, for instance, when he told the world that he mingled his blood with the blood of millions of slaves who had been unjustly oppressed...etc. Brown himself, and the few brave supporters who did not fear being arrested, were able to turn the tide of opinion in the north, so that Brown died a hero to many after all. In six short weeks, Brown went from lone-wolf maniac to a saintly hero. Remarkable.
As for his actions in Kansas...well, let's remember how the whole mess in Kansas started and who fired the first shots...Choosing to view Brown as a murderer in Kansas takes his actions completely out of context.

From post #6 in this thread:

"Here are some of Lincoln's comments on John Brown:

"Old John Brown has just been executed for treason against a state. We cannot object, even though he agreed with us in thinking slavery wrong. That cannot excuse violence, bloodshed, and treason. It could avail him nothing that he might think himself right. So, if constitutionally we elect a President, and therefore you undertake to destroy the Union, it will be our duty to deal with you as old John Brown has been dealt with.""

So it seems that in the beginning, Lincoln also did not approve of John Brown's murderous method of ending slavery. But after the Civil War, he echoed Brown's sentiments in his second inaugural address, when Lincoln's own method of ending slavery proved to be even more violent and bloodletting. It is easy to blame it all on the southerners, because of course they were absolutely morally wrong to enslave other people, but my point (as I stated in another thread which received practically zero response) is that the primary duty of the president of a country is to represent the people and to protect them and their interests, and like it or not, the southerners were nearly half of the country. Here is part of what I said in that thread:

"What is the primary duty of a president of a country? Isn't it to represent the people of the country and to protect them and their interests? It could be said that Lincoln and the Radical Republicans were the instigators of the Civil War because it was Lincoln's stance against the expansion of slavery into the Territories that caused the Southern states to secede. If he was going to take such a stance, he should have been as absolutely certain as possible how the Southerners would react to it, and he should have had some clue that they wouldn't just roll over and give up. Was it in the best interests of the people of the country to lose 2% of the population in the war and to shatter families all across the country? Even the slaves were not much better off for a very long time after their "freedom". Surely there must have been a better way to end slavery while also preserving the Union and democracy for future generations. "

Re.: "Surely there must have been a better way to end slavery while also preserving the Union and democracy for future generations. "
For example?

For example?

For example, as I've been saying in all my recent posts in this thread, John Brown's method of arming and aiding the slaves, but not encouraging them to kill unless they were forced to, in self-defense. And it very probably would have been necessary. Then so be it.

I am confused - you wrote "I said that the only chance of slavery ending without a civil war, was if the slaves themselves, with the help of sympathetic free people, attempt to make a bid for their own freedom." How were 4 million enslaved people supposed to make a bid for freedom?

On another point, you seem to be quite determined to be disrespectful yourself. I suggest you read some good, award winning history books about the founding of our nation until the outbreak of the Civil War. I am not sure where you are getting your information, but it isn't from any well regarded histories of the period. Secondly, there were four million enslaved people in the south in 1860. Who was supposed to represent them? Their masters? Hardly. I can assure you that those 4 million people were better off after the Civil War - they had the right to marry, vote, go to school, keep their children, go to church, earn their own money and keep it.

Lincoln did not destroy the United States of America. Those southerners who seceded from the United State and fired those shots at a federal installation attempted to destroy our country in order to keep people enslaved and to profit from their unpaid labor. This is not blaming all the southerners, it is historical fact.

(02-07-2016 05:43 PM)My Name Is Kate Wrote:  For example?

For example, as I've been saying in all my recent posts in this thread, John Brown's method of arming and aiding the slaves, but not encouraging them to kill unless they were forced to, in self-defense. And it very probably would have been necessary. Then so be it.

By whom and how should 4 million have been armed? Would that have been more legal and less bloody? And again - how should the hypothetically this way freed slaves have changed their status in the constitution?

I am getting my information almost exclusively from this forum. I do no outside reading at all, except for one book by Wild Bill (a member of this forum) and I cannot even remember the name of it. After I read it, thoroughly, I immediately sold it to try to get my money back (not that I thought it was an unworthy book at all). I do my own thinking and I make every effort to base my thinking on facts.

If, after all the explaining I've tried to do in this thread, you (and others...) still do not understand that I am saying, IMO, based on what you yourself wrote in your first posts in this thread, John Brown had the right idea for ending slavery, minus his encouragement of the slaves to kill (except in self-defense), I just can't help you. No way am I saying that the slaves were to make a bid for freedom without anyone's help. You can't understand that? Then don't understand it.

From everything I've observed about black people living in this country today, (and as I've said in another thread, I lived for twenty years in poor, unsafe, unfriendly neighborhoods), many if not most of them, do not think they have anything close to the freedom and opportunity they "should" have. They are not happy. Why not, if the Civil War was so beneficial to them? BTW, I live up north, not in the south.

Thanks Kate Larson. You mentioned...
"Choosing to view Brown as a murderer in Kansas takes his actions completely out of context."

That's the way I've always viewed Brown, where am I mistaken?

(02-07-2016 06:20 PM)My Name Is Kate Wrote:  From everything I've observed about black people living in this country today, (and as I've said in another thread, I lived for twenty years in poor, unsafe, unfriendly neighborhoods), many if not most of them, do not think they have anything close to the freedom and opportunity they "should" have. They are not happy. Why not, if the Civil War was so beneficial to them? BTW, I live up north, not in the south.

Would they be happier if freed the way you suggested? Or still in bondage? I don't see why this is the mere "fault" of "Lincoln"/his politics as there were several generations that followed. Where is their responsibility? And where the responsibility of the unhappy ones - why don't you expect them to free themselves now from their unhappy situation? You expected free sympathetic people to aid them - are you one of those to aid them now? And how could Lincoln foresee/expect this to happen today? (It's always easy to criticize by hindsight and when it were the others who were/are responsible/to act.)

---

These are neutral questions that just came to my mind when reading your post. I am aware I lack insight - and I would like to understand. Thanks.

Why do you say "the way you suggested?" It was John Brown's idea, not mine. I merely said that John Brown may have had the right idea about how to free the slaves, but he should not have advocated murder except in self-defense. And why does no one address the issue of Lincoln's statement (paraphrased, but in essence) at the time John Brown was hanged, that Brown deserved to be hanged because his advocating violence and murder was treason against the country, then, in his second inaugural address, after so many hundreds of thousands had been killed in the war, aligning himself with Brown's viewpoint that massive bloodshed was God's retribution for the country's sin of slavery?

I "expected free sympathetic people to aid" the slaves? I did no such thing. As you may have noticed, I am living here in the 21st century, not in the 19th century. But I certainly do admire the people who attempted to help the slaves, even at the risk of their own lives. "Why don't you expect them (black people) to free themselves now from their unhappy situation?" I absolutely DO expect that! At least they should make an effort not to contribute even more to their own unhappiness, as well as to the unhappiness of others who must come in contact with them.

Have you ever lived among people who hate this country and feel entitled to so much more, and expect YOU to deliver, and make them happy, while at the same time they have no respect for you because you are white, or because you refuse to go to bed with them (sorry Roger, but I don't know how else to get my point across to some of these people), and it makes no difference at all that you are poor just like they are, and in fact they despise you for being poor because, in their estimation, you are nothing but "white trash"? I have, and I can tell you it's no fun.