John Brown's Raid to Start Our Civil War

Mitch86

Mitch86

Member
Location
Connecticut, USA
Tomorrow, October 16, is the anniversary of John Brown's raid on the Southern Confederacy. That raid kicked off the US Civil War over slavery. It's hard to believe but at that time our Southern states had the "peculiar institution" of SLAVERY. 6 million African blacks were imported by our southern states to be slaves of our cotton planters. Lots of Americans, North and South, died in that war and our then President, Abraham Lincoln, was assassinated because of what he did to free our slaves.

He raided the Harper Ferry armory.
 

Tell me more about John Brown. I only know his name from the song "John Brown's body lies a-mouldering in his grave".

Ah, I see you have said that he raided the Harper Ferry armory. Thanks. I will look that up.
 
Last edited:
He made the raid on Harper's Ferry hoping to steal arms stored there with the idea of iniating a massive slave revolt. When he was hanged, they made him sit on his coffin while a wagon transported him and his coffin to the gallows.
 

The Civil War was about much more than the morality of slavery.

The wealthy and powerful bankers, investors, factory owners, and politicians in the North felt that slavery gave southern plantation owners an unfair economic advantage and that eventually the power and wealth of the North would shift to the South as southern plantation owners were able to invest in mills and factories of their own to process cheap southern cotton instead of sending it North.

The powerful elite in the North were more than happy to step back into the shadows and fund the religious groups and abolitionists that took up the challenge to abolish slavery.

The change in focus from money/greed to human rights proved to be a much more powerful and widely accepted way to accomplish what they had set out to do.

I’m in no way condoning slavery or the stain of slavery on America’s past. I’m just saying that there is always more than meets the eye, two sides to every coin, etc…
 
Aunt Bea said:
The Civil War was about much more than the morality of slavery.

The wealthy and powerful bankers, investors, factory owners, and politicians in the North felt that slavery gave southern plantation owners an unfair economic advantage and that eventually the power and wealth of the North would shift to the South as southern plantation owners were able to invest in mills and factories of their own to process cheap southern cotton instead of sending it North.

The powerful elite in the North were more than happy to step back into the shadows and fund the religious groups and abolitionists that took up the challenge to abolish slavery.

The change in focus from money/greed to human rights proved to be a much more powerful and widely accepted way to accomplish what they had set out to do.

I’m in no way condoning slavery or the stain of slavery on America’s past. I’m just saying that there is always more than meets the eye, two sides to every coin, etc…
Click to expand...
Money, it's always about the money. Whilst the bankers in the North let the abolishionists get the result that they wanted, the South turned to the wealthy UK.
British merchants provided the Confederacy with crucial funds, arms, and supplies, often in exchange for cotton, and private investors funded blockade runners to bring goods through the Union blockade. While the British government remained officially neutral, private citizens and businesses provided significant financial support to the Confederate war effort.

Financial agents:
The firm Fraser, Trenholm & Co in Liverpool served as a key financial agent for the Confederacy, helping to fund the construction of blockade runners and commerce raiders, such as the "CSS Florida".

Military supply network:
The same company managed a network that sourced and transported arms and military goods into the South.

Cotton bonds:
The Confederate government issued bonds backed by future cotton shipments, and they were popular with British investors, including Chancellor of the Exchequer William Ewart Gladstone. The value of these bonds rose during the war, reflecting a belief in the South's potential to succeed.

Private business investment:
Many private British businesses profited from the conflict by supplying the Confederacy with materials in exchange for cotton, which was vital for the British textile industry.

"Cotton is King" fallacy:
Although the Confederacy hoped its cotton would force British intervention, Britain had stockpiled enough cotton to get through the war and was also more reliant on Northern grain, which reduced its incentive to formally support the South.

Financial prudence:
British banks were cautious and often refused to finance the Union's war effort to avoid a potential Anglo-American war, which also hindered the Confederacy's ability to secure a formal alliance.

Post-war arbitration:
The U.S. sued Britain for aiding the Confederacy, and the resulting arbitration awarded the US $16 million in damages, which can be seen as official acknowledgment of the financial impact of British private support.
 
Last edited:
The debate over states' rights was inextricably linked to slavery; Southern states argued for states' rights to protect the institution from federal interference.
 
There are several glaring fallacious old saws expressed here. People hear this stuff as kids in public school, then repeat them as adults without ever doing any proper research. I don't have the energy to correct these right now, and come to think of it, the truth will promote resentments, the expression of which will likely shut down the thread. So I'll demur.
 
There are a few things @Mitch86 posted that need some straightening out, just for historical accuracy’s sake.

First off, John Brown’s raid at Harpers Ferry took place on October 16, 1859, not after the Confederacy existed. The Confederate States of America didn’t form until 1861, nearly two years later. So Brown wasn’t attacking the “Southern Confederacy” because it didn’t exist yet. He was trying to ignite a slave uprising by seizing the Federal armory at Harpers Ferry, Virginia (now West Virginia).

Second, the idea that his raid “kicked off the Civil War” isn’t quite right either. It certainly heightened tensions between North and South and scared a lot of Southern slaveholders, but the actual Civil War began in April 1861, when Confederate forces fired on Fort Sumter.

Also, the number quoted ... 6 million African blacks imported by our southern states ... is WAY off. Historians estimate that about 12.5 million Africans were shipped across the Atlantic in the entire transatlantic slave trade, but only around 400,000 were brought directly to what became the United States. The rest went to the Caribbean and South America. The enslaved population here grew mostly through natural increase, not new importation (which had been outlawed in 1808).

Finally, Abraham Lincoln’s assassination in 1865 did happen right after the Civil War ended, but it wasn’t directly because of “what he did to free our slaves.” John Wilkes Booth, the assassin, was a Southern sympathizer who blamed Lincoln for the South’s defeat and the collapse of slavery, but it was part of a broader Confederate revenge plot rather than a single-issue act.

So, in short:
  • John Brown raided a U.S. Federal armory, not the Confederacy.
  • The raid didn’t start the war, though it added fuel to the fire.
  • Slavery in the U.S. involved about 400,000 imported Africans, not 6 million.
  • Lincoln’s assassination came after the war, not before or during it.
Still, Brown’s raid remains one of the most dramatic and controversial sparks in our history ... a tragic attempt to end an even greater tragedy.
 

Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top