Nessecary evil that helped bring an end to the ownership of my people and push discourse further?

@@mazza3571slavery couldn’t have lasted more than 50 years regardless. It’s an incredibly inefficient system and there are better ways of causing social change than violence.

This such cowardly response, were the founders evil terrorists?

Yes 🗿

​@@mazza3571 This is what the modern right has lost. You have a trust in yourself to be the originators of the values that have no place being there if not for jesus christ. Jesus was God. He died for people, he didn't kill them in their sin. Right now there is a greater WAY more fierce oersecution of orthodox christians in Ukraine and every priest's words of prayer is "lord have mercy and light on them". You are like Dawkins, you want the fruit of civilization but not the tree. Repent.

That wasn’t his point lol

@@mikesmnell414 So what was the point? Like disobeying the laws regarding both Slave escapes and assisting escaping slaves are so unreasonable (all Humans desire freedom when they are detained for 0 reason) that breaking them is morally okay.

@@Mohamed_amin120 No that historically it existed.

@@Mohamed_amin120these losers are still mad they can’t enslave people

@@mikesmnell414You know what else was against the law, The Boston Tea Party. But nobody has a problem with that.

And what were you hoping it was?

​@@joeschmo4646An actual history channel not a political one.

@@cswizzle1890 yeah same.

Yeah this channel is an alt-right propaganda outlet. Best to steer clear.

@@cswizzle1890 bro thinks history is apolitical 💀

Terrorism is the use of violence targeted at civilians for political aims. Heros don’t do that.

@@Mfhollander2 John Brown didn't target civilians.

​@@keyes858 He quite literally did target civilians children One of his bastard kids literally killed an infan

​@@keyes858 ummmm....... who's gonna tell him?

@@martyscurllisinnocent4324 Tell me how he killed pro-slavery militia in Kansas?

You missed the point, John Brown was a murderous scum bag who didn't care who died because of his actions. He espoused a cause as a cover for his murderous ways. If you listen to the rhetoric of the left you will hear echos of John Brown's rhetoric in it, murder the opposition. Both Brown and the left define the opposition not a person's actions or beliefs but by a person's background/'race.

Many abolitionists supported feminism, centralization, socialism and even as far as free love. The more radical they were more those apply. It was a very leftist attitude merely aped by Modern conservatives because there gutless and want to kiss up to blacks

Yeah, many of these abolitionist were ultra-conservative, puritanical Calvinists.

Perhaps they themselves weren't modern left-wingers, but the puritanical mindset was very much passed down to the modern left.

What's interesting is that the puritan mindset outlasted the religion itself - the "city on a hill" became one of liberalism rather than calvinism. It was easily applicable to any utopian ideology.

Those antihuman control freaks know no bounds don’t they Mr Turtle?

John Orange

I have feeling we have been in the same reddit comment section

John Brown IS a radical - for desiring to end slavery by putting a bullet in the head of slavers while preaching the Bible in XIXth century US was an unprecedented thing! And BASED AS F%CK!

Wow Reddit but based nice

That’s not true at all. John Brown was widely considered a hero in the North at the time of his execution. Many towns held moments of silence. Anti-Brown demonstrations were much more rare.

John Brown's Body (1861) John Brown's body lies a-mouldering in the grave, John Brown's body lies a-mouldering in the grave, John Brown's body lies a-mouldering in the grave, But his soul goes marching on. CHORUS: Glory, glory, hallelujah, Glory, glory, hallelujah, Glory, glory, hallelujah, His soul goes marching on. He's gone to be a soldier in the Army of the Lord, He's gone to be a soldier in the Army of the Lord, He's gone to be a soldier in the Army of the Lord, His soul goes marching on.--CHORUS John Brown's knapsack is strapped upon his back, John Brown's knapsack is strapped upon his back, John Brown's knapsack is strapped upon his back, His soul goes marching on.--CHORUS John Brown died that the slaves might be free, John Brown died that the slaves might be free, John Brown died that the slaves might be free, His soul goes marching on.--CHORUS The stars above in Heaven now are looking kindly down, The stars above in Heaven now are looking kindly down, The stars above in Heaven now are looking kindly down, His soul goes marching on.--CHORUS

@@keyes858 the radical abolitionist weren’t liked at the time. Even in Boston, the hotbed of anti-slavery activity, the more well-known abolitionists were routinely accosted in the streets and even beaten up. The channel “Antebellum Etc.” does a good job using primary and scholarly secondary sources to show how the abolitionist were extremely controversial in the prewar years. (Before the name of the channel throws anyone off, he also uses primary and scholarly secondary sources to showcase the horrors and hardship of slavery.)

@@benjamingrist6539 John Brown was a special case; that’s why his raid was considered a turning point. That’s when people’s opinions of abolitionism changed.

thats not true. John browns body was a popular civil war song sang by the union troops.

You missed the point completly

@@tomassmith1519 No I didn't

@@faytwind3913 yep

@@tomassmith1519 what was the point, that enslaving your children wasn’t a crime worthy of death?

They shouldn’t, both could’ve been avoided and should’ve been.

Exactly, what’s funny is that this guy released a community tab joking about the what if ideologue being deranged just to make a crap video like this 💀

Still exists, even more so now than then, and your weak liberal care about everyone mindset is being BRED OUT. You are being replaced by more barbaric peoples from the islamic/hindu world.

Zion Dion is owned by Netanyahoo.

Thank you for this comment, I’m very disappointed by this video and the poor reasoning behind the I argue terrible and or crap takes in it.

I'm not too familiar with US history, but I read somewhere that the the "John Brown was mad and evil" books and articles were all written a long time after his death, is that correct/wrong/not entirely true in your opinion?

Genuine question. Is killing innocents who have nothing to do with slavery justifiable?

@@Americanpride555 No one said kill innocents who have nothing to do with slavery, this is a red herring.

@@Americanpride555red herring, Bot

"Ironic" -The Senate

Jerry they are holding slaves, its against God's law

"Jerry, you don't understand, we have to emulate Nat Turner's Rebellion!!!" - John "Kramer" Brown

I doubt that a slave revolt would even target everyone who was since there was discrimination against whites as well, the Irish being one group, even being called white n-words.

Well seeing how Browns actions lead to a war that killed over 50,000 civilians, and brought about the Reconstruction governments who’s disastrous policies is a leading cause as to the economic problems facing the south to this day…then I say by your logic Brown is pretty contemptible as far as generational suffering goes

@@davidstanford9933 I get your general point but I just don’t think it’s in line with the historical evidence. For one, the effect John Brown had in triggering the civil war is greatly exaggerated. It would have happened without him probably on the same dates, he’s merely an ideological martyr for the North who was one of the many minor causes that led to the war. For two, your claim that the reconstruction government’s policy was “disastrous” is unironically bordering on racism, the reconstruction government was the one that ended the enslavement of million of Americans and prevented those Americans from being trapped into a system of pseudo-slavery. Once reconstruction ended Jim Crow came into place and led to the deaths and subjugation of black people in this country for another hundred years. For three, the idea that reconstruction government’s economic policy has any substantial effect on the modern day economy is pretty silly, they really did not do very much to harm the Southern economy other than ending slavery. Since then, the Southern economy has gotten better at certain times and gotten worse, it’s not like it’s just flatlined since reconstruction. Regardless, before slavery ended, the South was always economically backwards, and both black people and poor whites languished in poverty. Finally I feel like even if there was any evidence of substantial financial damage during that period, it would be much more realistically attributable to the fact that the South was just the center of the largest war in our nation’s history. That usually isn’t great for the economy.

@@ExtremelyTriggered-tl4nv For one. Yes I agree that Joh Browns role in starting the war and eventually freeing the slaves is exaggerated. As his fans do need to find a way to make his life filled with nothing but terrorism and failure, actually mean anything. Nonetheless, if they are going to give him credit for something so significant, then all the consequences of it would have to be his doing as well by their own logic. For two. I never once claimed that Reconstruction was bad because it freed the slaves or tried to enforce civil rights. I don’t think I need to elaborate anymore on a point I never made As for the southern economy before and after the war, while it’s true southern planters made one of the richest demographics, they didn’t have all the wealth in the south, and it was far from being economically backwards since 7 of the ten states with the bigger per capita of wealth (which accounts for the individual wealth of every member of a population) joined the confederacy. But the devastation of the war and the reconstruction policies such as the discriminatory federal budget, the protective tariffs on cotton, and the panic of 1873 caused by the Union Pacific railroad lead to lasting and disproportionate impoverishment in the south up to the 50s. This also leaves out the fact that racist voter discrimination and segregation were not unique to the South at the time. At the end of the War only five New England states with tiny black populations permitted blacks to vote. Connecticut, Minnesota, and Wisconsin rejected black suffrage in 1865. Kansas did so in 1867 as did Michigan and Missouri in 1868 and New York declined to repeal property requirements for black voters in 1869. The real reason as to why the radical republicans pushed for voting rights in the south was to create a strong voting base for the still young party. Even William T Sherman himself said as much: “I have never heard a negro ask for . . . [voting rights] . . . and I think it would be his ruin . . . I believe the whole idea of giving votes to the negroes is to create just that many votes to be used by others for political uses . . .”

Plus, John brown isn’t only a hero of the left (though they would hate him on everything else) but Brown is also a hero of Christians in his piety and living a life of faith and devotion.

@@kaminsod4077 Haha have you even watched his videos? You're strawmanning so hard. Nobody is saying a critique of abolitionism is "automatically slavery apologetics". Matter of fact, you are the only one saying that.

@@kaminsod4077 There's plenty to critique about John Brown without making shit up lol

It sounds like he thinks the civil war as a whole was a grand tragedy and that if the radicals in the south and north didn’t get out of hand then maybe it could have been avoided and slavery stamped out gradually. Now that may not be the idealistic or even pragmatic thing to believe but I see his point in theory

@@brodbreissSlavery was nowhere close to being stamped out gradually.

This guy seems kinda weird. He also defended Wilson.​@@kaminsod4077

He also killed many said blacks. He was not a hero he was a retard much like you are.

The problem is that he killed innocent civilians who had nothing to do with slavery just because they were white Southerners, and his end-goal was the death of all whites in the South (the Haitian slave revolt rap ed and killed all the French in Haiti). I would argue that he actually set Abolition back by a long way, and contributed to the tensions that would lead to the Civil War rather than a peaceful Abolition.

​@@Jupiter__001_maybe there is something to be said for violent revolt against a population who willingly enslave millions of individuals? In the end it was resorted through violence anyways.

John Brown and Nat Turner are burning in hell.

​​@@Jupiter__001_ This is the very essence of 2 wrongs don't make a right. I agree that John Brown is not a hero, that he did a lot of wrong things, but that doesn't mean what he fought against didn't deserve to die. The institution of slavery at this time was the worst it had ever been, and it wasn't going to go away quietly. [Edit: for letting my fingers get ahead of my words.]

@@IamMeHere2See I agree. Slavery is too profitable for it to simply become obsolete economically (and even if plantation slavery went away, house slavery would have remained). But I don't agree with John Brown's actions at all. I think that a peaceful resolution to the problem could have been achieved. (Like how Wilberforce pushed for years in the House of Commons for the abolition of slavery, and despite heavy opposition from the slavery lobby, and the anti-reform zeitgeist in the face of the French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars, he eventually succeeded because his cause was just). I think that if some effort went into industrialising the South so that all the wealth and power were not concentrated in the hands of plantation owners, slavery could have been abolished eventually and with great struggle.

Ok so children are free game?

@@dapperbunch5029only if they’re white children with these people

@@dapperbunch5029 It sucks, but if it means ending hundreds of years of murder, yes

@@faytwind3913 Indeed, just how Germany in WW2 was justified. Or how the Holodmor was justified. Or how about we do thinks slower, yes, but more diplomatic and you know, we don’t involve children.

@@faytwind3913 So wait you’re angry at Monsieur for calling out a, while justified terrorist, a terrorist. It seems to me you’re just kinda psychopathic.

nope:)

Good, echo chambers are bad for everyone. 😊

YWNBAW

@@Gigachadsik Are you talking to me, or?

@@Gigachadsik you will never be a real man

@@TheLonesomePagan.the people he killed are somewhere far worse

@ebrimajallow9631 to hell

@@TheLonesomePagan. Purgatory most likely

@@TheLonesomePagan. read the Old Testament god killed CHILDREN to free the Jewish slave so I’m pretty sure gods got no problem with His soul is In heaven

Abraham Lincoln:👍 John Brown:👎

@@GrinchLite That's very reductive. Lincoln was perfectly willing to let slavery continue in order to preserve the Union.

Mr Z never had the plot to begin with

@@keyes858 That’s like comparing MLK to malcom X. MLK obviously was the more impactful player in the civil rights movement because he wasn’t a radical. Like Malcom X, John Brown only hurt the movement which he represented (abolitionist movement) where calmer heads like Lincoln and MLK prevailed. Figures like X and Brown only hurt their respective movements, and John Brown actually made the abolitionist movement a fringe part of society up to the civil war.

@@GrinchLite “Calmer heads prevailed”?? They had a war…

So Magneto was right?

​@@josephstalin839no

@@josephstalin839Maybe. I found the X-men arguments for oppose him in the comics i read foolish.

​@@josephstalin839weird pfp Patton hated Communism

Most accurate analogy possible.

💯

What an awful evil household it is then

Based

@@user-no1nj9ji1d cry your rebel tears traitor America may be in a sorry state but the one thing it did right was having no mercy towards the Confederates

@@user-no1nj9ji1dwould you say the same thing against anti nazi partisans because they are doing "terrorism"

Violence didn’t have to comes that was the work of abolitionists Yankees

​@@thomaswatson1739and who started that violence?

​@@amandag.6186yankees when they illegaly occupied a fort that was, per an agreement between two nations, supposed to be turned over to the other nation.

@@Frankthetank-et7wo It was fucking not, no one agreed to it and union forces were stationed there for over 6 years.

​@Frankthetank-et7wo no the south started the war in fact they were preparing for months before attacking fort Sumpter

The issue is that the kids were taught to use arms and entitlement to own slaves in case of parent's death. Yes, kids were taught to fight to defend their "property". No human is willing to give up property without a fight. The Haitians regused to kill defecting Polish mercenaries, so they were not "gen9cidal".

Leftist justified targeting children. A tale as old as time itself

@@jstevinik3261the same could be said for almost any sectarian /tribal conflict

​​@@jstevinik3261 No, collective punishment is wrong no matter what, given the circumstances it is understandable but not justifiable. Stop defending mass collective based murder.

@@pablosoleramaeso4561 It is punishment for an activity (owning slaves where death rates were high and violently resisting the slave revolt) that is shared beyond one individual. "Collective punishment" makes sense in this case. If you are referring to slaver families, they were conditioned that they would inherit the "property" upon the patriach's death.

That in no way implies that john brown was viewed in bad light in the song.

his soul is marching on

@@winstonchurchill5892 if anything, you could argue the song was "washed" to be more politically correct for the time. The chorus remained the same, but changing _soul_ to _truth_ to indicate more than likely "God's Truth" since God obviously doesn't have a soul. I thoroughly enjoy both versions, but it's important to note we've always "washed" content for our own agendas; not a recent phenomenon.

I don’t think it was praising him.

Marching straight to hell maybe.

True lol

@ErenKruger-qx3dt Lol slave catching was perfectly legal, what's your source on them "murdering" abolitionists?

@@Galow311 holy fucking shit you would have volunteered to work the gas chambers at Auschwitz

Not all of them were, he shot dead grocers, laborers, executed young innocent children and women. You should read Mahala Doyle's letter to him, he was a freak and terrorist, whose thirst for bloodshed came second after his beliefs.

@@Galow311 owning a human being and selling your sons and daughters were legal as well, you think they don’t deserve to die for that?

Reddit creates dangerous individuals, while Twitter creates dangerous Collectives

Wayyyyy worse. Ive never had a meaningful conversation with someone i disagree with on reddit. Happens occasionally on X

@@utopiaOKC i get called the n word on twitter for being black lmao

I'm sure you're very black and white on World War Two though. Also 2018 called, it wants its distorted word meme back.

He's putting a counter narrative to the idea that John Brown was a good man that leftists speil. John Brown might have fought for a good cause but his methods were terrible.

@@wowmazin4399 What methods would you have used?

@@keyes858 Nothing really. It would've ended itself. Slavery was economically unviable and was seeing itself out. The Civil War caused great destruction to South which didn't help the newly freed slaves. Race relations would also probably be better since Southerners wouldn't be so bitter against the blacks.

@@wowmazin4399 How was slavery seeing itself out if the enslaved population was at an all-time high when the Civil War broke out? Sounds like slavery was stronger than ever.

Lmao makes sense

@@Bulbs_Productionswhy does that make sense

You understand the Bible endorsed slavery

just right*

@@ardvarkvv2718 so you think killing not involved in evil acts but just live in the area is justified?

​@@caredneck7613 sometimes evil must be destroyed.

@@jbone9900 tell me how a person who never owned slaves is evil? Yeah, I agree in certain cases violence is absolutely necessary but killing people solely for living in an area is evil too.

​@@caredneck7613Apparently those who he killed were pro-slavery voters, and he spared those who didnt support pro slavery politics. So he only killed those who directly helped perpetuate slavery. Not sure of that's true though.

savior complex

@@agentofchaos3015 Better a savior complex and do something, than complain like a cuck and do nothing

@@agentofchaos3015When you’re putting your life in the line to save people, you can have a savior complex

@@agentofchaos3015 He still did more for the slaves and upholding the Constitution and Christian beliefs that most preachers and politicians in the North

@nilmoratonas3056 "Upholding the constitution" He did the opposite of that you sped, how do you people lie so easily?

Cry.

@@riderofthewhitehorse8879 you smell take a shower

​@@freeguyloverFight me, pussy.

@@riderofthewhitehorse8879 aww is the mayonnaise man triggered?

​@@riderofthewhitehorse8879 "Rider of the white horse" 😂😂😂

One can be a Christian and have owned slaves. For St. Paul said "Slaves obey your Masters." Also the 10th commandment condemns left of anykind. So no John Brown was not a Christian. He was a Heretic trying to start a Race war. If he had won the South would look just like Haiti.

Yeah sure lol The bible was okay with slavery.

@@Wilhelm4131 slavery in the context the american south is considered one of the worst along with the zanzibar slave trade. Slavery during the times of the Israelites is not that.

"B-But they killed people! And it was illegal!"

@@zombieoverlord5173 yes people dying is bad, no matter who it is

The founders didn’t rape and kill innocents. They waged war on the government.

What do expect from a eugenics defender?

@@shanegodman1251All those poor British soldiers stuck thousands of miles from their homes and families were “the government”?

Not really, the Boston tea party literally went out of their way to pay back the lock they broke. Terrorists don't do that.

@@keyes858 They were armed soldiers bro. What do you mean innocent?

He did go after slave holders and people directly involved with the trade and oppression of slaves; the famous massacre that is pointed towards the spark of Bleeding Kansas was a direct reaction to pro-slavery violence directed towards peaceful abolitionists involving the sacking of a whole anti-slavery town

Actual schizobabbel

Ik dude, it’s completely backwards. Politics asides Brown was in the right

@@TTGregory2828 Motivated by a mad messiah-complex to commit massacres with the end-goal of genocide. Truly, he was on The Right Side of History™.

@@Jupiter__001_ you notice how he failed to sire a single historian or source for his claims. Brown saw the outcome of a slave rebellion as simply justifiable and I would too if I were him. 4 million souls….held to the worse conditions of human bondage known to man. Call it genocide if you want but I call it right

​@@Jupiter__001_ By definition he wasn't planning a genocide. You can't genocide an ideological faction

@@dillonblair6491 He wanted to genocide all Southerners because he saw them all as implicit supporters of slavery. It reminds me of some British newspapers during WW2 carrying opinion pieces saying that all Germans should be totally exterminated because they were all implicitly Nazis according to them.

He's twat and forever will be

JOHN BROWNS BODY LIES A MOULDERIN IN THE GRAVE!

Don’t forget the Werewolf squads!

Not all solutions should require violence. Two negatives don't make a position

​@@excaliberdg1178 dawg we had to fight a civil war over this, it had to be violent or it would never happen

@@excaliberdg1178 that view will never do anything to better society

He was the O.G. jayhawker.

the north would probably still outpace the south because of its industrial capacity, but because the south was aligned with Britain because of its natural resources, I could see the north maybe not being as powerful as they were during the civil war. The North would still probably win a civil war though.

@@trey5747 It would depend on a couple of things though. 1) How many states would actually Seced. Because if it's only New England and New York then they are going to be crushed under the Union armies simply because they won't have access to the sea, just like the South under the Anaconda plan. Even if states further west went with them, like Ohio, it doesn't really help matters. Then there's how the union would have most of the resources that the North did in our timeline. 2) Would this form of the Union even fight them? Because if the North leaves that means that a Democrat is in office, and if the Southern Democrats left to form the Confederacy for (along with slavery for their financial backers) States Rights, then they would be more willing to let the meddling North leaves, as they would have seen it as their right to do so.

Thats easy, america wanted land and the native americans were to weak to defend their land…end of story

@@TheLonesomePagan. okay, then what sort of other topic is there to explain?

Mate you are forgetting something important in that, the north fully intended to brutalize to south beyond repair for centuries and they absolutely wanted to make that defeat incredibly hard to swallow so the south would learn it’s place and never rebel again. It’s easy to say playing nice or respecting traditions could have helped but realistically the south would have rebelled again if they weren’t crippled and broken so viciously and whether or not a southern man lead the union forces or not, they were NEVER given the option to take anything but defeat fter 4 years of a country shattering war and in the long term, the north was correct in suppressing the confederates as much as they did

The Emancipation Proclamation was basically Lincoln offering the South a deal. If the CSA were to lay down their arms and come back into the Union by the end of 1862 it would go back to the way it was before they seceded, just as if the war never happened. They refused, due mainly to the fact that they had been fighting for their independence for over a year by this point and the Grand Army of the Potomac was no closer to Richmond then than when the war started.

@@nekogaming5300 the south got off easy honestly.

@@nekogaming5300On the contrary, brutalization wasn't the point until Grant was in charge. A large part of the reason the war lasted for several years was that the North initially was very hesitant to press (particularly in the east) and believed the South could be blockaded into submission at first.

@@skedarblegarble brutalization was 100% the point from day one till the day the war ended, thats what reconquering one’s country requires after a civil war. Idk what you seem to think but there was a very good reason the union dismantled southern culture, ended slavery as a whole and completeky and utterly crippled the entirety of the south. The confederacy wasn’t just some revolt, it was a rebellion with land half the size of western europe and there was no way the union could have retaken it without brutality. The south was vicious, treated union prisoners VERY poorly and disregarded any and all opportunities to try and mitigate casualties. They acted like barbarians throughout that war so when the union retook the south, they treated those same barbarians as they acted and ensured they couldn’t do it again…ever

his enemies were enslaving god's creatures

@chevyjay399 Yes but the way he went about trying to stop that injustice was injust itself

As God said do not spare the rod. Slavery was never gonna go away peacefully and the only way the South would give up there slaves was threw bloodshed. Like why would they fire the 1st shot if they thought they would be able to keep there slaves

@@TheLonesomePagan. He targeted civilians that specifically went to Kansas to keep slavery. Not to mention said civilians were Border Ruffians that committed atrocities

@@TheLonesomePagan. Those civilians you talk about were Border Ruffians. People who explicitly traveled to Kansas to murder and cause mayhem for any person that wasn’t Pro Slavery

Slavery is disgusting. This whole comment section is just southerners who are trying everything to save face for there 4 year old long country. This is reach, getting rid of slavery is bad all of a sudden now

lol no

That's the story of mankind.

That’s correct. There is no truth but power.

So the union was right and the rebs were wrong

War does not determine whos right only whos left -Bertrand Russell

Based

@@tudoraragornofgreyscot8482 Socialism and modern capitalism are cringe. Embrace Distributism.

​@@crusader2112Distribution? More like distribute these balls into your mouth, LMAO. (I'm sorry that sentence was just asking for a ligma.)

Good

Abolitionists were the leftist anti fa types of their day. They never change. It's also noteworthy that most had never seen a black man.

@@TheLonesomePagan. cry your rebel tears. Maybe you can use them to put out Sherman's fire

Amen

@@TheLonesomePagan. maybe you can focus on getting rid of your obesity and poverty

Not to mention your high violent crime rates

@@LuxRoyaleTo be fair the South also took up arms against the nation.

Well said. Nathaniel Hawthorne wrote of John Brown. "Never before was a criminal more justly hanged." And Hawthorne was an abolitionist himself... he just wasn't a terrorist.

@@snakey934Snakeybakey if everyone was like Nathanial Hawthorne my people would still be in chains.

@@mazza3571Slavery was abolished for not fit industrialism not for ethics. Don’t worry, new chains are in the mind and you never got rid of them.

@@wmarshal2802 life under capitalism was dominating and imposing its values. Was question of time they would abolish slavery. In the english empire at least.

@@adamnesico a slave literally could be murdered or used as skin sock, it is better to live in liberal capitalism then that

I guess I can see that

Definition of an anti-villain. Dude’s like a real life Pain.

he was no anti villain he was a plain villain there is no other side of the story, only lies told to make this lunatic look better he was willing to genocide members of his own race for something humanity did since it´s first days

​@@MonsieurDean your newest bad take confederate looser

Well, it doesn't matter if he was a dogmatic supporter or not. He made his informed decision. He decided to betray the (at the time "these") United States of America when side his state of Virginia took part in it in a multi-state insurrection. To form the Confederacy and leave the rest of the United States as a rump state.

Hmmmm defending confederate generals and blasting anti slavers... where have I heard this before?

@@Shockkings0714 “Anti-slavers” is when you indiscriminately murder white women and children.

Cant defeat hate with hate. That's how hate gets bigger.

@@Shockkings0714, from people who think.

Dude's already rolling in his grave at FTL speeds.

What about abortions?

​@@achaeanmapping4408 created to reduce black population by a literal nazi, works as intended

​@@achaeanmapping4408John Brown would Most defninetly hate abortion

@@Jakov-or7fp yes, and?

I dig your cheese ball vibe bro

Womp womp, shouldn't have lied

“Had I so interfered in behalf of the rich, the powerful, the intelligent, the so-called great, or in behalf of any of their friends, either father, mother, brother, sister, wife, or children, or any of that class, and suffered and sacrificed what I have in this interference, it would have been all right; and every man in this court would have deemed it an act worthy of reward rather than punishment.”

@@keyes858 i totally forgot about that quote. So good

Insulting to actually crusaders

The Crusaders massacred the Jewish communities of Europe.

"It's okay to terrorize people. Just have 'the good guy beliefs', and you'll be fine" okay, Fed boy.

I consider heroes to be integral. I don't believe or like that pure white armour hero crap. A complex hero-alinged grey individual is more interesting.

"Grey?" How the fuck is massacring innocent men women and children in the middle of the night grey to you?

If you’re looking for perfect heros maybe fiction is more your style.

@@jnsnj1 John Brown was a Perfect Villain if anything

​@@adrianshephard378then what are the slavers John targeted that killed peacefully abolitionists then?

This whole thing ends up feeling very "defending slavery to own the libs"

Agreed

"Real conservatives" send their children to die for isreal.

I dont think he is an actual conservative, he is Just a reactionary

There's so many people I want to say this too

And you’ve been wrong for years

His mask fell into oblivion a while ago