this post was submitted on 23 Jun 2025
1 points (100.0% liked)

A Comm for Historymemes

2985 readers
24 users here now

A place to share history memes!

Rules:

  1. No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, assorted bigotry, etc.

  2. No fascism, atrocity denial, etc.

  3. Tag NSFW pics as NSFW.

  4. Follow all Lemmy.world rules.

Banner courtesy of @[email protected]

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

I'm just saying, Harper's Ferry was heroic, Pottawatomie Creek not so much. Brutally murdering your civilian neighbors for their political views in front of their spouses and children, just because you're pissed off and lack the means to strike at the real enemy, is abhorrent.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I’m just saying, Harper’s Ferry was heroic, Pottawatomie Creek not so much.

I wouldn't call the Pottawatomie Massacre heroic, but I also wouldn't call it abhorrent. Frederick Douglass had it right when he called it a terrible remedy for a terrible malady.

Brutally murdering your civilian neighbors for their political views

They were only civilians in the same sense that John Brown himself was a civilian. Not really sure that "I believe in using force to subjugate and murder other human beings" is really all that defensible a 'political view' to be whinging about the morality of having force used against you, especially when you're a member of a fraudulent legislative attempt to cement that political view over a region.

in front of their spouses and children,

They were led out into the woods, literally none of the five men killed were killed in front of their wives or any children who were not themselves adults and being killed as well.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

They were led out into the woods, literally none of the five men killed were killed in front of their wives or any children who were not themselves adults and being killed as well.

I apologize that I had that detail muddied. I was recalling what I had heard from the historian at the Adair Cabin historical site but it's been a while. The Doyle men and Sherman were certainly led away before being killed; are we as sure about Wilkinson? Either way, abducting three men in view of their family and then murdering them within earshot (as attested by Doyle's widow) is only marginally better than murdering them on the front lawn.

They were only civilians in the same sense that John Brown himself was a civilian.

Is there any evidence that the victims themselves were murderers or had participated in armed violence against their government and countrymen? If the victims were, say, known members of Samuel Jones' posse or Quantrill's raiders then I wouldn't have even raised the issue.

when you're a member of a fraudulent legislative attempt to cement that political view over a region.

How so? To my understanding, Jayhawkers and Bushwhackers both migrated to Kansas in droves for the express purpose of voting on the issue of slavery. What was the fraudulent part?

There are plenty of people in my community today who have frankly abhorrent political views and are willing to excuse atrocities at home and abroad for any number of reasons - ignorance, self-interest, tribalism, whatever you want to call it. They're not all criminals. I don't think dragging them out of their homes in the dead of night and slaughtering them should ever be a solution that crosses anyone's mind. In the case of the Pottawatomie Massacre, all it achieved was steeling the bushwhackers' resolve and a fresh spate of retributive violence. In the two years leading up to the massacre there were 8 killings in Kansas over this issue; in the three months following and including the massacre there were more than 30. It was a reckless spark in a powder keg

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

How so? To my understanding, Jayhawkers and Bushwhackers both migrated to Kansas in droves for the express purpose of voting on the issue of slavery. What was the fraudulent part?

Migration is not the same as casting a vote in an election when you are not a resident.

The 1855 Kansas Territory elections were a series of pivotal moments in the "Bleeding Kansas" conflict between pro-slavery individuals and "Free-Staters" in Kansas Territory. The initial elections for territorial legislature, held on March 30, 1855, were marred by widespread voter fraud, intimidation, and violence, as pro-slavery forces from neighboring Missouri crossed the border to cast ballots and suppress anti-slavery voters. In response, Kansas Territorial governor, Andrew H. Reeder, ordered new elections to be held on May 22 in certain districts. But even after the corrective elections, pro-slavery candidates still managed to win a majority of seats in the territorial legislature. When the legislature convened in July, it promptly ejected all the Free-State candidates who had won seats in the May elections. This act led to many Kansans lambasting the body as the "Bogus Legislature."

Allen Wilkenson was a member of said legislature; which attempted to enforce laws 'passed' under such blatant malfeasance with the usual threats of government ie violence. Doyle and his sons were part of the party which enforced the power of said legislature; Sherman was a partisan of the legislature as well with a history of threatening free-staters.

There are plenty of people in my community today who have frankly abhorrent political views and are willing to excuse atrocities at home and abroad for any number of reasons - ignorance, self-interest, tribalism, whatever you want to call it. They’re not all activitists and criminals. I don’t think dragging neighbors out of their homes in the dead of night and slaughtering them should ever be a solution that crosses anyone’s mind.

So if there was an effective coup of the local government by the Nazi Party, sanctioned or ignored by the national government, and a fresh spate of politically motivated murders of dissenters against this government, and a few ardent members of the Nazi Party, including a Nazi legislator, were your neighbors, your response to violence being visited on them in turn would be, what, "Violence is never a solution, not even to the combination of extrajudicial and state-sponsored violence 🥺"?

Forgive me for not finding that Christian notion of infinite martyrdom appealing. Or useful. Or moral.

In the case of the Pottawatomie Massacre, all it achieved was steeling the bushwhackers’ resolve and a fresh spate of retributive violence. In the two years leading up to the massacre there were 8 killings in Kansas over this issue; in the three months following and including the massacre there were more than 30. It was a reckless spark in a powder keg

Of course, the reckless spark in the powder keg wasn't the violence or expulsions that preceded it, no, it was daring to make any form of retribution against two years of slaver violence that had gone unanswered.

The violence by the free-staters led to a congressional investigation, which discovered that a firm majority of the residents of Kansas wanted it to enter as a free-state, but I'm sure that if the free-staters had just rolled over and continued to allow the slavers to pretend to represent the will of the people of the territory, everything would've worked out swell. No need for any uncomfortable moments, just a nice, 'clean' entry of a slave state into the Union that no one has to fret about. 😊

Maybe John Brown shouldn't have attempted the raid on Harper's Ferry, either. I mean, imagine all the innocent slavers he would've hurt in the process of the uprising had he succeeded. Civilian slavers, at that, who'd never taken up arms or done any harm (at least none that would be recognized by a jury of their peers) against their fellow white man.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

You bring up good points, but to be clear, I didn't say violence is never a solution; just that the Pottawatomie Massacre was misdirected. I thought I was clear from the beginning that I believe the raid on Harper's Ferry was a much more well-conceived attack, both in terms of moral justification and strategic value. Surely you can see that attacking a military target with the intent to arm and free slaves is a completely different matter than slaughtering people for being merely associated with criminals just because you're so consumed by righteous anger in the moment.

Migration is not the same as casting a vote in an election when you are not a resident.

The victims of the Pottawatomie Massacre lived on homesteads in Kansas. Again, is guilt-by-association enough to condemn someone to a bloody extrajudicial killing?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago

Surely you can see that attacking a military target with the intent to arm and free slaves is a completely different matter than slaughtering people for being merely associated with criminals.

More than just associated with criminals - supporting and enabling a coup with the intent of establishing a system of horrific human exploitation against the will of the majority of the territory.

The victims of the Pottawatomie Massacre lived on homesteads in Kansas.

As I pointed out, the legislature was fraudulent; you asked why it was fraudulent with this:

How so? To my understanding, Jayhawkers and Bushwhackers both migrated to Kansas in droves for the express purpose of voting on the issue of slavery. What was the fraudulent part?

To which I offered the reasons why the state government was illegitimate, not accusing the five killed specifically of not being residents; rather, pointing out that the state government that one of them was a part of and the other four vigorously defended was not only morally repugnant, but fraudulent as well.

Again, is guilt-by-association enough to condemn someone to a bloody extrajudicial killing?

If the judiciary itself in a country is subverted, what moral condemnation is extrajudicial punishment? Extrajudicial punishment is reviled because it operates on the presumption of a functioning judiciary; the judiciary in Kansas at the time was quite explicitly controlled by the pro-slavery faction, with little regard for actual democratic or legal processes, as John Brown had found out prior to the massacre.

Tell me this - would attacking the rear-echelon troops of a military be condemning men simply for guilt-by-association?

The cooks, the truck drivers - what offense did they commit, but to wear the uniform of an organization deemed to be offensive to life or liberty?

How much of this argument you're putting forth is principle, and how much is convention?

Convention has a reason - it is neatly organized moral judgement for complex issues that can be reliably and consistently applied - but it is reliant on prerequisite circumstances, circumstances which are usually, but not always present.

In Bleeding Kansas, the core aim of a major faction is to inflict indignity on a massive swathe of human beings for no crime other than their birth, the state apparatus is not being applied to prevent said faction from violating laws and norms in pursuit of this goal (and, in fact, is explicitly working to enable it), and the major supporters of the exercise of violence are not uniformed individuals or even organized bands, but in outbreaks of vigilante violence - of the kind John Brown et co visited on the supporters of said violence in turn.

Convention is not very useful in that context.