Denmark Vesey: Hero? Or Villain?

Post Reply New Topic

It depends on the nature of the regime. MLK or Gandhi would have been turned into soap under a Nazi regime, crucified by the Romans and simply executed in the old south. There is a time when force is the only remaining option. And "racial justice" doesn't seem to be the goal here anyway.

Slavery in the Old South just wasn't going to end without violence. And lots of it.

^^^I thought you liked people being complaint AP?You are suggesting that people become violent and use*gasp*firearms?I thought you were a pacifist?

Well that took an invading army, even though emancipating slaves wasn't their primary goal. A mere slave uprising here and there wasn't going to do it.


Most pacifists are only pacifists until their own needs call for violence. Of course, then it's justifiable since their purpose is (to them) always noble.

Last edited by Raptor on 01 Mar 2014, 9:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

You know me too well.

Ending slavery and defeating Hitler were both very noble, and couldn't have been accomplished without violence.

Blaming Vessey for not using MLK, or Gandhi, as role models ( both of whom were more than a centurey in the future) is silly. He didnt have access to a time machine.

For any American to condemn him because he DID use George Washington as a role model by doing essentially the same thing that Washington had done only a couple generations before-which was to lead an Armed insurrection against an oppressor- is both absurd, and hypocritical.

Last time I checked, Denmark Vesey rebelled against slavery.

Washington rebelled against taxation without white representation.

Vesey may not have been the kindest man on Earth, but it would be unfair to drag him down to the level of someone like George Washington.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

There was a successful slave revolt in Haiti, some 20 years earlier. In fact, Haiti was the second independent republic in the Americas. The example had our white Southerners pooping in their pants. Particularly in states where the slaves vastly outnumbered free persons. The United States didn't officially recognize Haiti until (guess who?) Abe Lincoln was president.

You know, an obedient, hard-working slave could count on being provided with food, clothing, and shelter, as a valuable beast of burden. If he broke a leg or something he would be fed and cared for until he healed. And his master was legally forbidden to turn him out in the elements even when he became old and sick. It sounds like some people's idea of Paradise.

The Northern states, on the other hand, were essentially laissez-faire. A person would have to go through all the hassle of getting and keeping a job, buying his own stuff, and making his own provisions for a rainy day; those unable to earn their own living would have no option but to seek out private charity. Why, indeed, would anybody exchange comfort and security for all that icky freedom?

I don't blame him at all for trying to escape,I probably would have also tried.I don't think I could have been able to go into someone's room at night and kill kids,I suppose you would have to kill the whole family.If a person was angry enough at losing their own family,maybe they would be able to do this.It doesn't seem like a very good plan,if one person escaped they'd set off the alarm have everyone after you.
Anyway,I'm sorry he didn't have another idea that would allowed him to escape and live as a free man.

He was already free. He'd won a $1500 city lottery and bought himself. He tried to buy his wife but her master wouldn't sell her.

Don't know how I missed that ,I'm going to blame the weather,it has made me stupid.I'm sorry he didn't get to purchase his wife and free her.

This will completely blow your mind - - but I am in total agreement with you!

This will completely blow your mind - - but I am in total agreement with you!