The Two Romulan States

[Zatoichi]

Thanks, Nasat.
I've had "Death in Winter" and "Taking Wing" collecting dust on my shelves—now seems as good a time as any to crack 'em open.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

^That sounds good. I've always kind of figured the Romulan praetor has many of the same abilities of the Roman censor, as well. Being able to strike people from the senatorial rolls was a great power then and would surely be such in the Romulan state.

At any rate, "praetor" is definitely a term of convenience for humans. Maybe some wires got crossed somewhere, and someone who didn't know their Roman government put the wrong label on things.

The novel Probe has an interesting interpretation, explaining the praetor as constitutionally the third most powerful position in the Empire, presumably below a hereditary "emperor" and a "consul," but in practice the praetor functioned as the executive.

Sorry it took me a while to reply to this post. I was busy finishing some stuff.

Sure. There's not inherent correlation between "political maturity" and being powerful. In point of fact, the entire concept of "political maturity" is very suspect -- it's based on the presumption that some cultures are superior to others, are more "mature" than others, and that cultures develop traits in a linear fashion as does a human being in his/her lifecycle. It's absolute nonsense, as we can tell just from looking at American history.

During the Civil War and during Reconstruction, the United States was in a phase of racial idealism. The 13th and 14th Amendments were passed, racist propaganda was actively being fought against, Republicans who believed in racial equality had control of the Congress and most of the state governments, African-Americans were being integrated into the European-American social structure.

And then the Democrats returned to power in the South, and later in Washington. The culture of European-Americans changed; Northern and Southern white folk forged an unofficial agreement that they were both just as American as the other, and turned on African-Americans. Thus began the nadir of American race relations, lasting from 1890 to around 1940. Segregation, Jim Crow, horrific bigotry, the works.

I would argue that the fact that chattel slavery continued to be outlawed prevented that period from being the nadir of race relations. As awful as it was, I would suppose it was still was better than the period preceding it.

John Brown went from being seen as either a hero or, at the very least, a David taking on the Goliath of slavery and losing, to being depicted as actively insane, irrational, and murderous

In fairness, iirc John Brown was probably insane. And, for my money, a hero. He can be both.

From the point of view that holds that there's a such thing as linear cultural development towards some sort of egalitarian, democratic "maturity," U.S. culture regressed. But even that's absolute nonsense. It simply changed its value system to one incompatible with what it had previously held. And then, after the 1950s, it changed its value system again.

There's no such thing as political "maturity." There's just change.

If I define "political maturity" as describing any society with a broad segment of its population who are literate, skilled, and politically interested, would you still say there's no such thing? I don't equate political maturity with modern western democracy. It's possible to say that the later Soviet Union was in many respects a "politically mature" society, as is the PRC--as was the Union in 1864. Far from really democratic, often extraordinarily far from politically moral, but with a more or less broad political class, who can influence the direction the society takes, and who can demand appeasement and have the clout to get it.

A good dividing line might be whether a change in regime could be described as a coup or a revolution. A politically immature society would be susceptible to a dispassionate coup undertaken by a small group. Libya, Egypt, Iraq, perhaps Russia in October 1917. A politically mature society, by contrast, could not be overcome by a clique of military officers, and instead you would describe any violent upheaval more in terms of a revolution or civil war.

What does this have to do with Romulan society? I remain convinced that a society with the technological maturity of Romulus would have the political maturity as I have described it. A broad, interested, educated, invested elite, who would be aghast at the kind of coup Shinzon and Tal'Aura orchestrated, and who would be pliant only so long as a cloaked planet-destroyer remained in orbit above Romulus. Tal'Aura should have been strung up the moment Shinzon headed for Earth.

I dunno, that's just my take on it.

Now Shinzon did say that the government changes a lot on Romulus so the public probably thought killing the Senate was the usual regime change and were probably just annoyed at the public show of it instead of going the quiet assaination route, and Tal'Aura was smart enough to distance herself from shinzon when his genocide plans came out.

Spoiler: Typhon Pact stuff

That being said since Tal'Aura came to power it seems she's gone from one clusterfuck to another so if this joining the new Typhon Pact thing doesn't work out I'm pretty sure she won't continue living for long.

 

[Sci]

The novel Probe has an interesting interpretation, explaining the praetor as constitutionally the third most powerful position in the Empire, presumably below a hereditary "emperor" and a "consul," but in practice the praetor functioned as the executive.

Interesting. It reminds me of how, officially the post of Prime Minister in Britain didn't "actually" exist; 10 Downing Street, for instance, is formally a gift of the Sovereign to the person serving as First Lord of the Treasury, which in modern times has always simultaneously been the Prime Minister. The PM post didn't "officially" exist until the early 20th Century; up until then, the post was always an unofficial post held by a person who held some other official position, usually First Lord, and who was asked by the Sovereign to form a government -- that is, to form a special sub-committee of the Privy Council known as the Cabinet, comprised of Members of Parliament -- in His or Her Majesty's name.

Sure. There's not inherent correlation between "political maturity" and being powerful. In point of fact, the entire concept of "political maturity" is very suspect -- it's based on the presumption that some cultures are superior to others, are more "mature" than others, and that cultures develop traits in a linear fashion as does a human being in his/her lifecycle. It's absolute nonsense, as we can tell just from looking at American history.

During the Civil War and during Reconstruction, the United States was in a phase of racial idealism. The 13th and 14th Amendments were passed, racist propaganda was actively being fought against, Republicans who believed in racial equality had control of the Congress and most of the state governments, African-Americans were being integrated into the European-American social structure.

And then the Democrats returned to power in the South, and later in Washington. The culture of European-Americans changed; Northern and Southern white folk forged an unofficial agreement that they were both just as American as the other, and turned on African-Americans. Thus began the nadir of American race relations, lasting from 1890 to around 1940. Segregation, Jim Crow, horrific bigotry, the works.

I would argue that the fact that chattel slavery continued to be outlawed prevented that period from being the nadir of race relations. As awful as it was, I would suppose it was still was better than the period preceding it.

It depends on whether or not you think that African-Americans were de facto slaves. Given the system of sharecropping that existed, I'd have a hard time characterizing the condition of African-Americans in the South in particular as being all that much better than existed under slavery -- I'm not an expert, but people who are have called that period the nadir, and I myself would have a hard time calling a family of sharecroppers from that period free.

John Brown went from being seen as either a hero or, at the very least, a David taking on the Goliath of slavery and losing, to being depicted as actively insane, irrational, and murderous

In fairness, iirc John Brown was probably insane.

That notion was a piece of historical revisionism introduced during the nadir. There's no actual evidence to suggest it, and no one from the actual period of Brown's life who met him claimed he was.

From the point of view that holds that there's a such thing as linear cultural development towards some sort of egalitarian, democratic "maturity," U.S. culture regressed. But even that's absolute nonsense. It simply changed its value system to one incompatible with what it had previously held. And then, after the 1950s, it changed its value system again.

There's no such thing as political "maturity." There's just change.

If I define "political maturity" as describing any society with a broad segment of its population who are literate, skilled, and politically interested, would you still say there's no such thing?

You've established a definition, but you haven't established what makes that definition meaningful. It's an arbitrary definition. What makes that society any more politically mature than any other? As you noted, by your definition, the People's Republic of China is politically mature -- but how can the word "mature" be used in a meaningful sense for a political culture built on repression? And, really, how can "mature" be used in any reasonable sense? Why does literacy and interest make a society more "mature" than another? Why would a society of literate, skilled, interested imperialists be more "mature" than, say, an isolationist pre-industrial agrarian society that that lacks strong political hierarchies?

And in what sense is it "mature" -- that is, does it resemble the form that a society "ought" to look like? Maturity is a concept we use when comparing a society's evolution to the changes undergone in a human life-cycle, but a human life-cycle features stages where the subject has not attained all of the characteristics it ought to have when fully functional, and then has stages where it loses characteristics it ought to have as it nears its death. There is a natural hierarchy, so to speak -- but there is no such natural hierarchy amongst societies. Societies just exist.

Far from really democratic, often extraordinarily far from politically moral, but with a more or less broad political class, who can influence the direction the society takes, and who can demand appeasement and have the clout to get it.

But using the term "maturity" is a value judgment that implies that that broad political class that can influence the direction its society takes and can demand appeasement and have the clout to get it, somehow ought to have that power. Which, if that's what you mean, fine -- but it's a subjective evaluation that only functions relative to a democratic assumption that a state's citizens ought to be able to influence the direction the state takes, and either way has no impact on the ability of a society to advance technologically or imperially.

A good dividing line might be whether a change in regime could be described as a coup or a revolution. A politically immature society would be susceptible to a dispassionate coup undertaken by a small group. Libya, Egypt, Iraq, perhaps Russia in October 1917. A politically mature society, by contrast, could not be overcome by a clique of military officers, and instead you would describe any violent upheaval more in terms of a revolution or civil war.

The word you are looking for is stability, not maturity. And bear in mind that a society can go from not being vulnerable to coups to being vulnerable in a relatively short span -- can lose its so-called "maturity." But maturity is not something that can be lost -- it can only be accumulated. Another reason that "maturity" is a bad term to use.

What does this have to do with Romulan society? I remain convinced that a society with the technological maturity of Romulus would have the political maturity as I have described it.

But there is absolutely no evidence of that at all. In fact, NEM established that coups are fairly common on Romulus.

 

[Rush Limborg]

That notion was a piece of historical revisionism introduced during the nadir. There's no actual evidence to suggest it, and no one from the actual period of Brown's life who met him claimed he was.

Didn't one of his sons describe his reaction to the incident that led him to start his carreer as, "He went crazy--CRAZY"?

And of course, while Lincoln completely sympathized with Brown's motives...still, Honest Abe made it absolutely clear that Brown's reasons did not justfy the atrocities he committed.

There is a reason that the state in which most of his crusade was conducted was called..."Bleeding Kansas".

Brown was a vigilante--and that's the best way to describe him. (The worst way would be "terrorist"....) His reasons were noble and good, but, in this case at least, the ends did not justify the means.

 

[Sci]

That notion was a piece of historical revisionism introduced during the nadir. There's no actual evidence to suggest it, and no one from the actual period of Brown's life who met him claimed he was.

Didn't one of his sons describe his reaction to the incident that led him to start his carreer as, "He went crazy--CRAZY"?

From Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong, 2nd Edition, by James W. Loewen:

Since ideas and ideologies played an especially important role in the Civil War era, American history textbooks give a singularly inchoate view of that struggle. Just as textbooks treat slavery without racism, they treat abolitionism without much idealism. Consider the most radical white abolitionist of them all, John Brown.

The treatment of Brown, like the treatment of slavery and Reconstruction, has changed in American history textbooks. From 1890 to 1970, John Brown was insane. Before 1890 he was perfectly sane, and after 1970 he has slowly been regaining his sanity. Before reviewing six more textbooks in 2006-07, I had imagined that they would maintain this trend, portraying Brown's actions so as to render them at least intelligible if not intelligent. In their treatment of Brown, however, the new textbooks don't differ much from those of the 1980s, so I shall discuss them all together. Since Brown himself did not change after his dead -- except to molder more -- his mental health in our textbooks provides an inadvertent index of the level of white racism in our society. Perhaps our new textbooks suggest that race relations circa 2007 are not much better than circa 1987.

In the eighteen textbooks I reviewed, Brown makes two appearances: Pottawatomie, Kansas, and Harpers Ferry, Virginia. Recall that the 1854 Kansas-Nebraska Act tried to resolve the question of slavery through "popular sovereignty." The practical result of leaving the slavery decision to whoever settled in Kansas was an ideologically motivated settlement craze. Northerners rushed to live and farm in Kansas Territory and make it "free soil." Fewer Southern planters moved to Kansas with their slaves, but slave owners from Missouri repeatedly crossed the Missouri River to vote in territorial elections and to establish a reign of terror to drive out the free-soil farmers. In may 1856 hundreds of pro-slavery "border ruffians," as they came to be called, raided the free-soil town of Lawrence, Kansas, killing two people, burning down the hotel, and destroying two printing presses. An older textbook, The American Tradition, describes Brown's actions at Pottawatomie flatly: "In retaliation, a militant abolitionist named John Brown led a midnight attack on the proslavery settlement of Pottawatomie. Five people were killed by Brown and his followers." The 2006 edition of The American Pageant provides a much fuller account, but one that is far from neutral.

The fanatical figure of John Brown now stalked upon the Kansas battlefield. Spare, gray-bearded, and iron-willed, he was obsessively dedicated to the abolitionist cause. The power of his glittering gray eyes was such, so he claimed, that his stare could force a dog or cat to slink out of a room. Becoming involved in dubious dealings, including horse stealing, he moved to Kansas from Ohio with a part of his large family. Brooding over the recent attack on Lawrence, "Old Brown" of Osawatomie led a band of his followers to Pottawatomie Creek in May 1856. There they literally hacked to pieces five surprised men, presumed to be proslaveryites. This fiendish butchery besmirched the free-soil cause and brought vicious retaliation from the proslavery forces.

Pageant's prose is typical of books written during the nadir of race relations, 1890-1940 (when most white Americans, including historians, felt that blacks should not have equal rights), and comes as something of a shock at the beginning of the twenty-first century. In this rendering, those who fought for black equality had to be wrongheaded.

Indeed, the first edition of this textbook came out in 1956, long before the changes wrought by the civil rights movement had any chance to percolate through our culture and influence the writing of our history textbooks. The choice of language -- from "fanatical figure" to "dubious dealings" to "fiendish butchery" -- is hardly objective. One man's "stalk" is another's "walk." Bias is also evident in the choice of details included and omitted The account throughout makes Northerners the initial aggressors, omitting mention of the earlier murders by pro-slavery Southerners. Actually, free-staters, being in the majority, had tried to win Kansas democratically and legally; it was pro-slavery forces who had used terror and threats to try to control the state. No reader of Pageant would guess that pro-slavery men had recently killed five free-state settlers, including the two slain in the Lawrence raid. Nor had Brown moved to Kansas "with his large family"; rather, he had moved to the Adirondacks, hoping his sons would join him there, but five sons and their families instead went to Kansas, hoping to farm in peace. They then asked their father for aid when threatened by their pro-slavery neighbors. Other errors include "presumed to be proslaveryites" (they were), and "literally hacked to pieces" (they weren't) [Citation for this claim in back of book.]

<SNIP>

Four textbooks still linger in the former era when John Brown's actions proved him mad. "John Brown was almost certainly insane," opines American History. The American Way tells a whopper: "[L]ater Brown was proved to be mentally ill." The 2006 American Pageant, like its predecessors, characterizes Brown as "deranged," "gaunt," "grim," and "terrible," says that "thirteen of his near relatives were regarded as insane, including his mother and grandmother," and terms the Harpers Ferry raid a "mad exploit." Other books finesse the sanity issue by calling Brown merely "fanatical." Not one author, old or new, has any sympathy for the man or takes any pleasure in his ideals and actions.

For the benefit of readers who, like me, grew up up reading that Brown was at least fanatic if not crazed, let's consider the evidence. To be sure, some of Brown's lawyers and relatives, hoping to save his neck, suggested an insanity defense. But no one who knew Brown thought him crazy. He favorably impressed people who spoke with him after his capture, including his jailer and even reporters writing for Democratic newspapers, which supported slavery. Governor Wise of Virginia called him "a man of clear head" after Brown got the better of him in an informal interview. "They are themselves mistaken who take him to be a madman," Governor Wise said. In his message to the Virginia legislature he said Brown showed "quick and clear perception," "rational premises and consecutive reasoning," "composure and self-possession."

After 1890, textbook authors inferred Brown's madness from his plan, which admittedly was far-fetched. Never mind that John Brown himself presciently told Frederick Douglass that the venture would make a stunning impact even even if it failed. Nor that his twenty-odd followers can hardly all be considered crazed, too. Rather, we must recognize that the insanity with which historians have charged John Brown was never psychological. It was ideological. Brown's actions made no sense to textbook writers between 1890 and about 1970. To make no sense is to be carzy.

Clearly, Brown's contemporaries did not consider him insane. Brown's ideological influence in the month before his hanging, and continuing after his death, was immense. He moved the boundary of acceptable thoughts and deeds regarding slavery Before Harpers Ferry, to be an abolitionist was not quite acceptable, even in the North. Just talking about freeing slaves -- advocating immediate emancipation -- was behavior at the outer limit of the ideological continuum. By engaging in armed action, including murder, John Brown made mere verbal abolitionism seem much less radical.

After an initial shock wave of revulsion against Brown, in the North as well as in the South, Americans were fascinated to hear what he had to say. In his 1859 trial John Brown captured the attention of the nation like no other abolitionist or slave owner before or since. He knew it: "My whole life before had not afforded me half the opportunity to plead for the right." In his speech to the court on November 2, just before the judge sentenced him to die, Brown argued, "Had I so interfered on behalf of the rich, the powerful, it would have been all right." He referred to the Bible, which he saw in the courtroom, "which teaches me that all things whatsoever I would that men should do to me, I should do even so to them. It teaches me further, to remember them that are in bonds as bound with them. I endeavored to act up to that instruction." Brown went on to claim the moral high ground: "I believe that to have interfered as I have done, as I have always freely admitted I have done, in behalf of His despised poor, I did no wrong but right." Although he objected that his impending death penalty was unjust, he accepted it and pointed to graver injustices: "Now if it is deemed necessary that I should forfeit my life for the furtherance of the ends of justice, and mingle my blood further with the blood of my children and with the blood of millions in this slave country whose rights are disregarded by wicked, cruel, and unjust enactments, I say, let it be done."

Brown's willingness to go to the gallows for what he thought was right had a moral force of its own. "It seems as if no man had ever died in America before, for in order to die you must first have lived," Henry David Thoreau observed in a eulogy in Boston. "These men, in teaching us how to die, have at the same time taught us how to live." Thoreau went on to compare Brown with Jesus of Nazareth, who had faced a similar death at the hands of the state.

During the rest of November, Brown provided the nation graceful instruction in how to face death. In Larchmont, New York, George Templeton Strong wrote in his diary, "One's faith in anything his terribly shaken by anybody who is ready to go to the gallows condemning and denouncing it." Brown's letters to his family and friends softened his image, showed his human side, and prompted an outpouring of sympathy for his children and soon-to-be widow, if not for Brown himself. His letters to supporters and remarks to journalists, widely circulated, formed a continuing indictment of slavery. We see his charisma in this letter from "a conservative Christian" -- so the author signed it -- written to Brown in jail: "While I cannot approve of all your acts, I stand in awe of your position since your capture, and dare not oppose you lest I be found fighting against God; for you speak as one having authority, and seem to be strengthened from on high." When Virginia executed John Brown on December 2, making him the first American since the founding of the nation to be hanged as a traitor, burch bells mourned in cities throughout the North. Louisa May Alcott, William Dean Howells, Herman Melville, John Greenleaf Whittier, and Walt Whitman were among the poets who responded to the event. "The gaze of Europe is fixed at this moment on America," wrote Victor Hugo from France. Hanging Brown, Hugo predicted, "will open a latent fissure that will finally split the Union asunder. The punishment of John Brown may consolidate slavery in Virginia, but it will certainly shatter the American Democracy. You preserve your shame but kill your glory."

Pages 173-179. Bold added.

Clearly, no one other than folks trying to help Brown avoid the gallows claimed him insane -- and those who claimed him insane did not actually believe it.

The man was dedicated to the cause of freedom, not insane.

And of course, while Lincoln completely sympathized with Brown's motives...still, Honest Abe made it absolutely clear that Brown's reasons did not justfy the atrocities he committed.

<SNIP>

Brown was a vigilante--and that's the best way to describe him. (The worst way would be "terrorist"....) His reasons were noble and good, but, in this case at least, the ends did not justify the means.

[/quote]

I'm sorry, but how can you say that? The only way I can begin to understand that claim is if you think violence is never justified under any circumstances. But I know from having spoken to you in the past that you do not believe this.

So, if violence is sometimes justified in the pursuit of freedom, then of all situations, how can violence not be justified when it is being used to secure people's freedom from slavery? Of all the horrible violations of human rights in the world, how can slavery possibly not be considered sufficiently evil as to justify violence against it?

There are only two ways I can possibly imagine arguing that slavery is not sufficiently evil as to justify the use of violence in resisting it. The first is absolute pacifism -- the belief that violence is never justified under any circumstances. The other is racism -- the belief that the rights of the enslaved ethnic group are not equal to those of the dominant ethnic group.

I'm sure you are neither a pacifist nor a racist, Rush. So how on Earth can you say that slavery was not evil enough to justify violence in resisting it?

There is a reason that the state in which most of his crusade was conducted was called..."Bleeding Kansas".

Yes -- because pro-slavery white Missourians murdered abolitionists and started a miniature civil war in an attempt to turn Kansas into a slave state (without actually moving to Kansas).

 

[Rush Limborg]

I'm sorry, but how can you say that? The only way I can begin to understand that claim is if you think violence is never justified under any circumstances. But I know from having spoken to you in the past that you do not believe this.

So, if violence is sometimes justified in the pursuit of freedom, then of all situations, how can violence not be justified when it is being used to secure people's freedom from slavery? Of all the horrible violations of human rights in the world, how can slavery possibly not be considered sufficiently evil as to justify violence against it?

There are only two ways I can possibly imagine arguing that slavery is not sufficiently evil as to justify the use of violence in resisting it. The first is absolute pacifism -- the belief that violence is never justified under any circumstances. The other is racism -- the belief that the rights of the enslaved ethnic group are not equal to those of the dominant ethnic group.

I'm sure you are neither a pacifist nor a racist, Rush. So how on Earth can you say that slavery was not evil enough to justify violence in resisting it?

Sci, I seem to recall your contempt towards Jack Bauer (and Section 31, but you had other reasons, as well), in a previous debate. Your reasoning was that NO one should take the law into their own hands. Let us then proceed to use this line of reasoning....

See, Brown's ideals, as I said, were GOOD. His taking part in the Undeground Railroad was VERY noble. But to wage what was, in effect, a one-man war against the US when nonviolent means would have been more effective in his freeing of slaves, is crossing the line.

Violence was justified in ending slavery--during the Civil War. By that time, the South had drawn a line, and refused to accept any reforms that Lincoln would take to end slavery.

Before this point, the hope existed of reform, and a peaceful and nonviolent means of achieving freedom for all--and sadly, John Brown effectively crushed any hope for this. He took the law into his own hands, when it was truly not neccesary.

John Brown, IMO, gave in to despair--and impatience. Lincoln was coming--and reform was therefore also coming. But he chose to take the shortcut, and resorted to the killing of those whom he percieved to be threats to his cause.

I am no pacifist, Sci--as you have stated. I believe that violence (and, coincidently, the bending of rules) is indeed, many times, neccesary for the security of a free state. But--to use violence to promote reform in a nation--such should ONLY be engaged in when all other avenues have failed, like the American Revolution.

Think about it: Who was more effective--Malcolm X (who promoted violence)...or Martin Luther King, Jr. (who promoted civil disobedience)?

 

[captcalhoun]

this is fascinating to me. i never even HEARD of this guy before this week. seems like my kinda guy, though. one who'll kick ass in the name of freedom.

 

[Sci]

I'm sorry, but how can you say that? The only way I can begin to understand that claim is if you think violence is never justified under any circumstances. But I know from having spoken to you in the past that you do not believe this.

So, if violence is sometimes justified in the pursuit of freedom, then of all situations, how can violence not be justified when it is being used to secure people's freedom from slavery? Of all the horrible violations of human rights in the world, how can slavery possibly not be considered sufficiently evil as to justify violence against it?

There are only two ways I can possibly imagine arguing that slavery is not sufficiently evil as to justify the use of violence in resisting it. The first is absolute pacifism -- the belief that violence is never justified under any circumstances. The other is racism -- the belief that the rights of the enslaved ethnic group are not equal to those of the dominant ethnic group.

I'm sure you are neither a pacifist nor a racist, Rush. So how on Earth can you say that slavery was not evil enough to justify violence in resisting it?

Sci, I seem to recall your contempt towards Jack Bauer (and Section 31, but you had other reasons, as well), in a previous debate. Your reasoning was that NO one should take the law into their own hands.

No, my reasoning was that no one should take the law into their own hands when the rule of law exists. The very existence of the institution of slavery means that the rule of law did not exist, since the natural rights of African Americans were not being respected or defended. The U.S. government failed to protect the rights of African-Americans, thus breaking the social contract; the government was by definition therefore corrupt and undeserving of obediance, thus returning the right to use force to defend the natural rights of the individual back to the individuals and away from the government.

You'll recall that I made a similar exception for Batman in the Batman Begins/Dark Knight films, arguing that the government of Gotham City had become so corrupt as to render invalid the social contract and therefore return to the citizens the right to act to secure their rights where the government would not do so. John Brown would be a similar case.

See, Brown's ideals, as I said, were GOOD. His taking part in the Undeground Railroad was VERY noble. But to wage what was, in effect, a one-man war against the US when nonviolent means would have been more effective in his freeing of slaves, is crossing the line.

Except that non-violent methods would rather obviously not have been more effective. As I noted above, pro-slavery forces were had already attacked peaceful free-soilers -- and, indeed, the Civil War eventually proved that only the use of force could free enslaved persons in the United States. Slavers had already used force in an attempt to enforce their will upon both African Americans and upon anti-slavery activists. They therefore forefitted their right to be defended by the government (just as the government had forefitted its right to demand obedience to its arbitrary laws); they deserved to die for having enslaved people.

Before this point, the hope existed of reform, and a peaceful and nonviolent means of achieving freedom for all

1. No it did not. The fact that slavers started the Bleeding Kansas war proves that.

2. Slavery is such a fundamental violation of a person's rights that the use of violence is inherently justified to resist it. Period. Saying that John Brown should have used non-violent means to promote the end of slavery is like saying that European Jews should have used non-violent means to resist the Holocaust and had no right to use violence to free themselves from the death camps.

But--to use violence to promote reform in a nation--such should ONLY be engaged in when all other avenues have failed, like the American Revolution.

I would agree with you if I thought that the thing seeking to be reformed was a legitimate political opinion; the enslavement of a human being is not. Violence is inherently justified to resist it, and no slaver has the right to be defended from those who use violence to free their prisoners.

 

[Rush Limborg]

1. No it did not. The fact that slavers started the Bleeding Kansas war proves that.

As I noted above, pro-slavery forces were had already attacked peaceful free-soilers

Upon further historical research, I am willing to concede this point.

2. Slavery is such a fundamental violation of a person's rights that the use of violence is inherently justified to resist it. Period.

I would agree with you if I thought that the thing seeking to be reformed was a legitimate political opinion; the enslavement of a human being is not. Violence is inherently justified to resist it, and no slaver has the right to be defended from those who use violence to free their prisoners.

So...would you say, then, that (in theory, of course) a free nation using military force to free the victimized citizens of a nation enslaved by a tyrranical dictator...is justified in doing so?

 

[Sci]

1. No it did not. The fact that slavers started the Bleeding Kansas war proves that.

As I noted above, pro-slavery forces were had already attacked peaceful free-soilers

Upon further historical research, I am willing to concede this point.

2. Slavery is such a fundamental violation of a person's rights that the use of violence is inherently justified to resist it. Period.

I would agree with you if I thought that the thing seeking to be reformed was a legitimate political opinion; the enslavement of a human being is not. Violence is inherently justified to resist it, and no slaver has the right to be defended from those who use violence to free their prisoners.

So...would you say, then, that (in theory, of course) a free nation using military force to free the victimized citizens of a nation enslaved by a tyrranical dictator...is justified in doing so?

No, because, 1. being ruled by a dictator is not the same thing as slavery (though it is not the same thing as freedom, either), and 2. because we are discussing domestic issues, not foreign issues. I apologize for not putting the qualifier, "Under the American concept of liberty and the social contract," ahead of my argument that violence is inherently justified to resist slavery.

A foreign society has the right to organize itself as it so chooses so long as it does not threaten any other society - edit: and so long as it is not committing genocide or a crime against humanity. End edit. But in our domestic politics, we have a social contract: Everyone has the right to freedom which must be protected by our government, and if our government does not fulfill this duty, the government has violated the social contract, and the private citizen therefore gains the right to use violence to secure his/her rights or the rights of his/her fellow citizens.

However, I would happily argue that the people being oppressed by a foreign dictator have an inherent right to use violence to resist their oppressor or to overthrow him/her. However, foreign societies do not have a right to interfere in their domestic politics unless that society has attacked foreign societies.

ETA:

You could, however, put together a strong argument in favor of foreign intervention/interference in a society's internal affairs if the government of that society is engaging in genocide or enslavement such as those engaged in by the Third Reich, the Hutus in Rowanda, or by white slavers against African Americans. I would, however, argue that that right only exists so long as those crimes against humanity are ongoing; if they have terminated for many years, the right of foreign societies to intervene is then lost.

In other words: The United States and its allies would have been justified in invading Iraq in the early 1990s when Saddam Hussein gassed the Kurds and therefore committed mass murder. But it lost that right after the attacks on the Kurds stopped -- and especially after the Kurds had gained de facto independence when Saddam lost control of the northern and southern thirds of Iraq due to the No Fly Zones put in place throughout the 1990s.

 

[Sci]

this is fascinating to me. i never even HEARD of this guy before this week. seems like my kinda guy, though. one who'll kick ass in the name of freedom.

I for one happen to think that John Brown ought to be up there on our list of American heroes, right next to George Washington, John Adams, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, César Chávez, Robert F. Kennedy, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Abraham Lincoln.

 

[captcalhoun]

never heard of cesar chavez...

and who's this benedict arnold guy?

 

[Sci]

never heard of cesar chavez...

and who's this benedict arnold guy?

César Chávez.

 

[andylightkai]

But in our domestic politics, we have a social contract: Everyone has the right to freedom which must be protected by our government, and if our government does not fulfill this duty, the government has violated the social contract, and the private citizen therefore gains the right to use violence to secure his/her rights or the rights of his/her fellow citizens.

I had a very long, drawn out answer to this quote written up, but because you've proven by your posts to be a remarkably well-informed and thoughtful individual I'll give you the benefit of the doubt in assuming that by the "right to freedom" you meant the "right to be a free citizen" and not "right to all personal freedoms whatsoever".

(ps I think the nadir of race relations in the US was from 1857-1865, stemming from the Dred Scott decision.)

 

[Christopher]

never heard of cesar chavez...

and who's this benedict arnold guy?

Oh, for God's sake, tell me you're kidding.

 

[JB2005]

^ He was the guy out of happy days wasn't he?

 

[captcalhoun]

never heard of cesar chavez...

and who's this benedict arnold guy?

Oh, for God's sake, tell me you're kidding.

no. i'm fucking British, we didn't study your poxy revolution. we got lumbered with learning about crap like the Holy Roman Empire, the Hapsbergs and Henry VIII at A-level and GCSE was entirely post WWI. prior to that we were doing stuff from the Persian Wars, ancient Roman, the Crusades and ancient Egypt.

 

[Sci]

never heard of cesar chavez...

and who's this benedict arnold guy?

Oh, for God's sake, tell me you're kidding.

no. i'm fucking British, we didn't study your poxy revolution. we got lumbered with learning about crap like the Holy Roman Empire, the Hapsbergs and Henry VIII at A-level and GCSE was entirely post WWI. prior to that we were doing stuff from the Persian Wars, ancient Roman, the Crusades and ancient Egypt.

I'm afraid that to most Americans, knowledge of who Benedict Arnold was is so pervasive as to make someone asking who he was sound like someone parodying extreme ignorance rather than asking an honest question because they come from a different culture.

To answer your question, Benedict Arnold was a general in the Continental Army during the American Revolution who betrayed the Americans. He won some key victories while serving under General Washington, but poor treatment from the Continental Congress (the details of which escape me) prompted him to defect to the British Army. There, he led several other campaigns; when the Americans won the war, General Arnold spent the rest of his days in Britain.

To most Americans, Benedict Arnold's name is the living embodiment of treason and betrayal; to call someone a Benedict Arnold is to call them a Judas (if not worse).

 

[Christopher]

no. i'm fucking British, we didn't study your poxy revolution.

It was a revolution against you guys, so it was just as much your war as ours. And as Sci said, Benedict Arnold defected from the Continental Army and was a major player on the British side.

Maybe British schools don't like to teach the American Revolution because you lost. Or because the actions of the British that led to the revolution aren't something to be proud of (though that's all the more reason why it should be taught and not forgotten).

 

[Deranged Nasat]

no. i'm fucking British, we didn't study your poxy revolution.

It was a revolution against you guys, so it was just as much your war as ours. And as Sci said, Benedict Arnold defected from the Continental Army and was a major player on the British side.

Maybe British schools don't like to teach the American Revolution because you lost. Or because the actions of the British that led to the revolution aren't something to be proud of (though that's all the more reason why it should be taught and not forgotten).

For what its worth, and no offense meant to anyone, I knew who Benedict Arnold was and the connotations his name carries to Americans, but yes, our schools- or at least those I'm familiar with- rarely seem to teach our young people much about that conflict. I was not taught of it officially, I picked up the knowledge outside of school. It is quite odd, given the importance of the revolution to our history, and the world's.