Are slave rebellions justified?

[Pro_Domina]

the war ended in 1865. that was over 143 years ago. what is there to be against?

correcting this would take days. regardless, it was the protestant English who ended the transatlantic slave trade.

slave revolts in Latin America, from the same source just cited and which you did not bother reading:

1519 Africans revolt in Spanish Hispaniola
1522 Revolt in Puerto Rico
1530 Revolt in Mexico
1550 Revolt in Panama and Peru
1630-1697
Thousands of enslaved Africans establish Palmares, Brazil
1639
First British West Indies African revolt (Providence Island)
1655 Revolt of 1,500 Africans in Jamaica
1663-1739 Nearly 76 years of insurrections by enslaved Jamaicans
1674 Revolt in Barbados
1687 Revolt in Antigua
1691 First revolt in Haiti
1760 Major revolt in Jamaica led by “Tackey”
1765 Revolt by enslaved Africans in Honduras
1768 Discovery of revolt plot on St. Kitts
1773 Enslaved Jamaicans in major revolt
1791-1803
Some 500,000 enslaved Africans successfully revolt in Haiti
1796 Enslaved Africans revolt in St. Lucia
1801 Revolt of enslaved Africans in Guadeloupe
1823 Major slave revolt in Guyana
1828-1837 Revolt of enslaved Africans in Brazil
1831 Revolt of enslaved Africans in Antigua
Major revolt in Jamaica, led by Samuel Sharpe
1844 Revolt of enslaved Africans in Cuba
1848 Revolt of enslaved Africans in the Virgin Islands

No doubt slavery is slavery. Yet the things were different. Read non bias historians that will show that the slaves for the most part when freed stayed with their old owners, because they were treated like family, and above all they worried for their spiritual life.

 

[elts1956]

Moses had the right because God asked him to lead his people out of slavery.
I haven’t heard that God spoke to Sparticus!

Maybe Sparticus intuited our Constitution? Life, LIBERTY and the pursuit of happiness? I think he had that right. No human should be master or mistress over another.

 

[elts1956]

Moses had the right because God asked him to lead his people out of slavery.
I haven’t heard that God spoke to Sparticus!

There’s a difference there, though. The only Egyptians who died were specifically killed by the hand of God. But a slave rebellion implies that it’s men killing other men. Is this a “Just War”?

Absolutely.

 

[elts1956]

The Civil War was more about other things than slavery.

The South still had aristocratic, organic and even a Catholic way of life that opposed to industrial,egalitarian. athiest North.

So they burned them to the grown. For slavery to stop is a natural process. The indians were not expected to clothe themselves the day they were baptized. Nor are entire milenia of slavery to change in a couple of years.

And it was only in protestant countries that slaves were treated like dogs. In Catholic countries most slaves stayed after they were free because they were treated well.

Three more reasons they stayed that I can think of. 1. They were uneducated (by popular demand) 2. They couldn’t support themselves. 3. They had no where else to go. All slavery was degrading, even if the slaves were considered “family” right up to the time they were sold by the Massa, because of debts owed by him, or his family after he died…

 

[elts1956]

The Civil War was more about other things than slavery.

The South still had aristocratic, organic and even a Catholic way of life that opposed to industrial,egalitarian. athiest North.

So they burned them to the grown. For slavery to stop is a natural process. The indians were not expected to clothe themselves the day they were baptized. Nor are entire milenia of slavery to change in a couple of years.

And it was only in protestant countries that slaves were treated like dogs. In Catholic countries most slaves stayed after they were free because they were treated well.

I am not for slavery. I am against the Civil War.

And the English were the ones who treated indians and blacks like trash.

In Latin America things were different.

How so? I thought the Aztecs, Incas and Mayans were at different times enslaved by the Spanish. They were certainly considered second class citizens.

 

[elts1956]

No doubt slavery is slavery. Yet the things were different. Read non bias historians that will show that the slaves for the most part when freed stayed with their old owners, because they were treated like family, and above all they worried for their spiritual life.

Certainly there were kind “owners” of people in the South, but it is not possible to say that the slaves “for the most part” when freed stayed with their owners. The whole slave system was degrading and festered from within resulting in the dehumanizing of humans.

How do you know the historians you read about are “non-biased”? When an historian writes, or gives the impression that the slaves of the South “loved” being slaves, because they were treated as family, you can be sure that historian is biased.

 

[MoBeck]

The Civil War was more about other things than slavery.

The South still had aristocratic, organic and even a Catholic way of life that opposed to industrial,egalitarian. athiest North.

So they burned them to the grown. For slavery to stop is a natural process. The indians were not expected to clothe themselves the day they were baptized. Nor are entire milenia of slavery to change in a couple of years.

And it was only in protestant countries that slaves were treated like dogs. In Catholic countries most slaves stayed after they were free because they were treated well.

Never have I seen so many outright lies all in one post.

The War to Suppress Southern Treason was about slavery and nothing else.

The North was more industrial than the South, but industry was just taking root – 90% of the population still made their living at agriculture. And to call the North “atheist” is ridiculous. It was the repeated evangelical revivals that fed the abolitionist (and other social) movements.

Lastly, slaves were treated far more brutally in Catholic countries. The slave trade in the US was stopped in 1808. Slaves continued to be imported to Brasil, Cuba, &c. Where do you think slaves were treated better – where they could only be replaced by natural increase or by cheap imports?

In the Catholic countries of S. America slaves greatly outnumbered masters (more so than in the US) and savage measures were required to put down rebellions.

 

[quasimodo]

Let’s be a little more clear.

The Civil War was NOT fought to free slaves, but it was fought almost entirely because of slavery. The South knew that if they did not maintain some sort of parity of population with the much more populous North then, eventually, they would see slavery made illegal. This would result in a dramatic loss of wealth. Southerner’s needed to expand slavery West. Free men in the West and in the North feared slavery and hated it, not because of love for the slaves, but because slavery dramatically reduced the value of a man’s labor. Lincoln came into this with an overwhelming desire to preserve the Union. The resulting mixture was a powder keg with a fuse just waiting for a match.

Strange but true: Some slaves in this country ran their own businesses - they had to turn some of the profit over to their owners sort of like dividends to stockholders.

 

[Wirraway]

Never have I seen so many outright lies all in one post.

The War to Suppress Southern Treason was about slavery and nothing else.

The North was more industrial than the South, but industry was just taking root – 90% of the population still made their living at agriculture. And to call the North “atheist” is ridiculous. It was the repeated evangelical revivals that fed the abolitionist (and other social) movements.

Lastly, slaves were treated far more brutally in Catholic countries. The slave trade in the US was stopped in 1808. Slaves continued to be imported to Brasil, Cuba, &c. Where do you think slaves were treated better – where they could only be replaced by natural increase or by cheap imports?

In the Catholic countries of S. America slaves greatly outnumbered masters (more so than in the US) and savage measures were required to put down rebellions.

the need for a continual stream of slaves to the new world was partly explained by the brutal working conditions, partly explained by the high mortality rate from epidemic diseases like yellow fever and malaria.

 

[elts1956]

Never have I seen so many outright lies all in one post.

The War to Suppress Southern Treason was about slavery and nothing else.

The North was more industrial than the South, but industry was just taking root – 90% of the population still made their living at agriculture. And to call the North “atheist” is ridiculous. It was the repeated evangelical revivals that fed the abolitionist (and other social) movements.

Lastly, slaves were treated far more brutally in Catholic countries. The slave trade in the US was stopped in 1808. Slaves continued to be imported to Brasil, Cuba, &c. Where do you think slaves were treated better – where they could only be replaced by natural increase or by cheap imports?

In the Catholic countries of S. America slaves greatly outnumbered masters (more so than in the US) and savage measures were required to put down rebellions.

I would give PRO DOMINA the benefit of the doubt.
Instead of accusing her of lies, I would rather think she is confused about the U.S. Civil War.

The War WAS NOT entirely about the freeing of the slaves. It was about the fear of expansion of slavery in the new territories. The South wanted to maintain the right to introduce slavery into those areas to maintain their voting balance in congress and the senate, while Lincoln wanted this expansion curtailed. The South also feared the limits this would bring to their econimic resources, mainly cotton and sugar.

The War bagan as a War regarding States Rights vs. Federal Rights. Or as the South saw it, Federal interference. It wasn’t until Jan. 1, 1863 that Lincoln introduced the Emancipation Proclamation. In actuality, he brought this into effect to keep England from siding with the South. England needed the South’s cotton for their own industries, but had prohibiited slavery in their country in 1833 . Lincoln knew he needed a moral jolt to England to keep them on the side of the North, or at least not to run blockades in the South.

See: spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Lslavery33.htm

archives.gov/exhibits/featured_documents/emancipation_proclamation/

"President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863, as the nation approached its third year of bloody civil war. The proclamation declared “that all persons held as slaves” within the rebellious states "are, and henceforward shall be free.

Despite this expansive wording, the Emancipation Proclamation was limited in many ways. It applied only to states that had seceded from the Union, leaving slavery untouched in the loyal border states. It also expressly exempted parts of the Confederacy that had already come under Northern control. Most important, the freedom it promised depended upon Union military victory.

Although the Emancipation Proclamation did not immediately free a single slave, it fundamentally transformed the character of the war. After January 1, 1863, every advance of federal troops expanded the domain of freedom. Moreover, the Proclamation announced the acceptance of black men into the Union Army and Navy, enabling the liberated to become liberators. By the end of the war, almost 200,000 black soldiers and sailors had fought for the Union and freedom.

From the first days of the Civil War, slaves had acted to secure their own liberty. The Emancipation Proclamation confirmed their insistence that the war for the Union must become a war for freedom.

It added moral force to the Union cause and strengthened the Union both militarily and politically. As a milestone along the road to slavery’s final destruction, the Emancipation Proclamation has assumed a place among the great documents of human freedom.

The original of the Emancipation Proclamation of January 1, 1863, is in the National Archives in Washington, DC."

 

[Pro_Domina]

Pro Domina, it says you are writing from Rome, so I assume you are Italian. As an American let me tell you that the Civil War was 100% about slavery. The South seceded from the Union because Southerners were extremely racist and were terrified at the thought of having their black slaves as equal citizens who might want to marry with their daughters. Yes, the fear of black and white interracial marriage was at the heard of the slaveowners fears. Many historical writings attest to this.

In Latin American catholic countries slavery was not a good thing either. There were many slave revolts in those places and black latinos today will not say that their ancestors “enjoyed” slavery.

Nope. I lived the first 17 years of my life in the US.
The slavery thing is the way that it is planted to us. The victors dictate the way history was.
It was not all slavery. It was against the way of life that was still familiar and organic but above all because it was still religious and aristocratic. Slavery, however wrong it is, was not the main reason for the war, but rather the war cry.

 

[Wirraway]

Nope. I lived the first 17 years of my life in the US.
The slavery thing is the way that it is planted to us. The victors dictate the way history was.
It was not all slavery. It was against the way of life that was still familiar and organic but above all because it was still religious and aristocratic. Slavery, however wrong it is, was not the main reason for the war, but rather the war cry.

what does any of that mean?

by the way, you’ve been schooled. maybe you should just do a little more reading before you try posting on the merits of a slave holding culture.

 

[Pro_Domina]

The thing is that we have to look at history in the eyes of the people who lived it as well. We all know perfectly that slavery is wrong today. But back then it was not a problem of conscience yet. The Church slowly was changing that, but like the cannibal and naked indians example, it takes time and tact to change millenial customs.

But my overall point is that the Civil War was more about destroying a way of life to give way to another,
But that is not in our history books no.

The same as the French Revolution. More than the people claiming for liberty (what people? The criminals and prostitutes of France riled up by cursed egalitarian nobles) and against the Monarchy it was against the Church.

Yet the history books say the French Revolution was a great achievement of mankind.

 

[elts1956]

The thing is that we have to look at history in the eyes of the people who lived it as well. We all know perfectly that slavery is wrong today. But back then it was not a problem of conscience yet. The Church slowly was changing that, but like the cannibal and naked indians example, it takes time and tact to change millenial customs.

But my overall point is that the Civil War was more about destroying a way of life to give way to another,
But that is not in our history books no.

The same as the French Revolution. More than the people claiming for liberty (what people? The criminals and prostitutes of France riled up by cursed egalitarian nobles) and against the Monarchy it was against the Church.

Yet the history books say the French Revolution was a great achievement of mankind.

Okay, so read The Slave Narratives and see if the Southern way of living was all comfy cozy for those “who lived it”.

 

[Pro_Domina]

I’ll give you a response which requires you to compilate some things.

There are some countries (mainly one) that are known to be full of ignorant, uncultured, low class people. Of the many defects, racism finds itself among them. Along with terrible beer and a taste for nascar and a terrible reputation among the citizens of other countries.

You know, like asking “Do you speak American?”

In other countries, even poor ones, like Latin American ones, have a rich culture and know things about things outside their own town and country

(Time Magazine came out with Great Events of the 20th Century and every single one of them were American, as if our own country is the only thing that exists)

and like even Barrack Obama said, others know the language of the countries they visit and work with while Americans can’t even speak English proprly, much less the second most spoken language Spanish, spoken by 35 million people in the US.

In other countries they don’t have ignorant things like racism.

In Latin America, blacks are treated the same as whites, and with a total naturality. Unlike the US, where you see a black man walk next to you at night and you worry. In L. America there is no fear like that. In fact, many are mixes.

Curious only protestant countries like the US and England are still big on this.

 

[elts1956]

I’ll give you a response which requires you to compilate some things.

There are some countries (mainly one) that are known to be full of ignorant, uncultured, low class people. Of the many defects, racism finds itself among them. Along with terrible beer and a taste for nascar and a terrible reputation among the citizens of other countries.

You know, like asking “Do you speak American?”

In other countries, even poor ones, like Latin American ones, have a rich culture and know things about things outside their own town and country

(Time Magazine came out with Great Events of the 20th Century and every single one of them were American, as if our own country is the only thing that exists)

and like even Barrack Obama said, others know the language of the countries they visit and work with while Americans GENERALIZATION can’t even speak English proprly, much less the second most spoken language Spanish, spoken by 35 million people in the US.

In other countries they don’t have ignorant things like racism. GENERALIZATION.

In Latin America, blacks are treated the same as whites, and with a total naturality. GENERALIZATION Unlike the US, where you see a black man walk next to you at night and you worry. DEPENDS ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD That man walking next to you could also be white and you still wouldn’t want to be in that neighborhood. Are there no place like this in L. America? Amazing, simply amazing. In L. America there is no fear like that. In fact, many are mixes.
Curious only protestant countries like the US and England are still big on this GENERALIZATION.

What does any of this have to do with the morality of slavery? Also, I don’t think “anyone” can make generalizations about “any” country, or culture unless they are a part of that culture and country. That would be a bit hard for an individual to do given the fact that both North Amerkca, ie. U.S. Canada, and Mexico and South America are quite large. One can read all one wants but it is an insult to a culture to think you know, understand and consider yourself part of that country and culture only through reading, or take someones elses opinion or ideas for truth.

And please let’s skip Barack Obama’s platitudes. So he is going to pass a law that everyone in the U.S. must speak Spainish? We have our own culture here in the U.S. That is what identifies us, for better or worse as a Nation.

 

[Pro_Domina]

I have lived in more than one country, and am eligible for several passports. I think I have some experience.
Plus the reputation of some is a no-brainer to prove correct. Just observe the tourists of Rome and I can assert the individuals from certain countries before I get close enough to confirm by hearing their language. This is not a thread about the morality of slavery. That is wrong. We are talking about slave rebellions, which under *certain *circumstances would be wrong.

 

[elts1956]

I’ll give you a response which requires you to compilate some things.

There are some countries (mainly one) that are known to be full of ignorant, uncultured, low class people. Of the many defects, racism finds itself among them. Along with terrible beer and a taste for nascar and a terrible reputation among the citizens of other countries.

You know, like asking “Do you speak American?”

In other countries, even poor ones, like Latin American ones, have a rich culture and know things about things outside their own town and country

(Time Magazine came out with Great Events of the 20th Century and every single one of them were American, as if our own country is the only thing that exists)

and like even Barrack Obama said, others know the language of the countries they visit and work with while Americans can’t even speak English proprly, much less the second most spoken language Spanish, spoken by 35 million people in the US.

In other countries they don’t have ignorant things like racism.

In Latin America, blacks are treated the same as whites, and with a total naturality. Unlike the US, where you see a black man walk next to you at night and you worry. In L. America there is no fear like that. In fact, many are mixes.

Curious only protestant countries like the US and England are still big on this.

I have lived in more than one country, and am eligible for several passports. I think I have some experience.
Plus the reputation of some is a no-brainer to prove correct. Just observe the tourists of Rome and I can assert the individuals from certain countries before I get close enough to confirm by hearing their language. This is not a thread about the morality of slavery. That is wrong. We are talking about slave rebellions, which under *certain *circumstances would be wrong.

Isn’t it the “morality/immorality” of slavery as seen through the eyes of a slave what causes rebellion?

 

[Pro_Domina]

GENERALIZATION

What does any of this have to do with the morality of slavery? Also, I don’t think “anyone” can make generalizations about “any” country, or culture unless they are a part of that culture and country. That would be a bit hard for an individual to do given the fact that both North Amerkca, ie. U.S. Canada, and Mexico and South America are quite large. One can read all one wants but it is an insult to a culture to think you know, understand and consider yourself part of that country and culture only through reading, or take someones elses opinion or ideas for truth.

And please let’s skip Barack Obama’s platitudes. So he is going to pass a law that everyone in the U.S. must speak Spainish? We have our own culture here in the U.S. That is what identifies us, for better or worse as a Nation.

Sorry but cheezburgers n’ nascar ain’t no culture.

But wees talkin about the morality of slave rebelions and not slavery. The latter is said and done for.

 

[Pro_Domina]

One thing is to escape.
Another to make a huge overthrow.

Another is to start a revolution to invert all principles.

Plus, the main thing I am trying to make a point is that all these wars and rebelions were not always the most pure intentioned events and that morally unjust order is better than chaotic “justice”.

The Civil War is one of the biggest examples this.

It was a war to crush a traditional way of life to give rise to the industrialist and eventually hollywoodian monster, that is now drinking its own venom.

The same with the French Revolution and the World Wars.

Just far worst.