Search the Lounge


« Miguel Méndez, 1943-2017 | Main | Presidents Ranked from Worst to Best »

June 12, 2017


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Quite a leap from self defense to murdering babes in their cribs.

WHen you are reading that Nazi, think about your defense of the latter and what that sort of thinking promotes.


Thanks Al, interesting as always.

Side note, typo in "fought back and inflicted a moral knife wound", "moral" s/b "mortal".

Al Brophy

anon -- obviously there's a ton of difference between Will and Nat & the other rebels. That Gaston recognized some right for Will, however, to fight back was unusual (and a departure from State v. Mann, which spoke about the owner's uncontrolled authority over the body of the slave and how the slave needed to know that there was no appeal from the owner's rights of dominion).

concerned -- thanks for the edit. I've fixed that.


There is no defense for brutally slaughtering children and other innocents to "terrorize" a target racial group (here, white people) into political capitulation (ending slavery), even though that capitulation, at the earliest possible time, would have been morally correct.

One needs to recognize the good in the folks who supported "some right for Will" (which I doubt you will do) and the bad in "Nat" (of whom you always speak with almost reverential deference).

Today, we face many zealots who believe that brutally slaying innocent people is morally justified. Until scholars are no longer able to wear blinders when reporting on those whom they support, the moral reckoning necessary to realize what every child knows (two wrongs don't make a right) will be even harder to achieve.

And, the one sided rehashing of painful history to only inflict further pain under the pretense of "revealing" that which I think every fair minded person already knows in general if not the particulars, while never acknowledging the humanity that triumphed and hopefully will triumph again today is not history, it is propaganda. Which is to say, like almost everything that we hear today posing as critical thought.

Again, study your Nazi scholar with these thoughts in mind, and I think you may learn different lessons.

Anon JD/MD

Al, thank you for the great post. Disregard the white supremacist nonsense from anon above. Anon claims that African Americans who “terrorized” their masters in an attempt to end slavery were evil zealots. They even make a cryptic comparison of the slave revolt to the modern day terrorist groups. But compare Nat Turner and his just cause, to our cause in World War II.

As the Soviets marched west, German refugees fled to cities like Dresden. These cities were home to factories and thousands of workers that supported the German war effort. Despite the tens of thousands of residents and refugees living in these cities, the United States and Britain dropped incendiary bombs on the city centers. Countless people, including children, died horrifically in firestorms. Bombing raids were timed in close proximity to each other to inflict maximum damage. As soon as one bombing raid ended and first responders came out to attempt to put out the fires, another bombing raid arrived to inflict more damage and casualties. The purpose of the fire-bombing was to terrorize and demoralize the German people. The United States also dropped incendiary bombs on Japanese cities as well, horrifically killing tens of thousands of civilians.

Despite the fact that the United States and allies targeted civilians, we hold political leaders such as Churchill and Truman, and military leaders such as Marshall and Eisenhower, in high esteem. You will never hear people like anon compare our heroes from World War II to modern day terrorist groups. We were fighting a war against evil in World War II, just like Nat Turner was fighting a war against the evil slave owners.

And consider the war we are currently fighting against the zealots that anon mentions. To this day, the United States kills civilians, including children, in war. We launch drone strikes and bomb enemy targets, even if children will be killed, as long as the harm caused is not excessive compared to the expected military advantage. You will never hear people like anon complain about that fact.

Anon is presenting the usual, tiring, hypocritical nonsense rampant in today’s political discourse. They claim that it is indefensible for people of color, fighting in a war for freedom, to kill their white owners. Then they complain that the rules of engagement, designed to minimize civilian casualties, are too stringent and hamstring our military.


Nothing to respond to above, Anon JD/MD. You have spun yourself into a frenzy based on speculation and conjecture ... perhaps you should rethink your rant in light of the news yesterday.

The comments to this entry are closed.


  • StatCounter
Blog powered by Typepad