Were slaves in the South justified in killing their owners?

[Ben Meyers]

Absolutely not!  Not even in Legree-esque type situations.

[12th Doctor]

I don't see it as a tough call at all. Absolutely no difference between that and the French Resistance or Warsaw Uprising. Killing your oppressors in all ways.

And, it depends on what type of situation we are talking about.  The Nat Turner Rebellion was nto justified, because the rebels went nuts and killed slave "owners", overseers, any black person who woul dnot join them, and the familes of "owners".  They then went through the country side and started indiscriminatly killing just about every white person they saw.

[opebo]

ill just wait here for a completely ridiculous comment from opebo.  im sure it is coming....

This is an odd personal attack, waltermitty.

I should think it would be obvious to anyone that an enslaved person should attempt to kill his oppressor. 

How can any of you imagine any other response to your own enslavement?  It boggles the mind that anyone has voted 'no'.

[Speed of Sound]

really, really tough call. If it was the only way to ensure freedom from oppresion, yes.

^^^^^^^^^^^

[opebo]

really, really tough call. If it was the only way to ensure freedom from oppresion, yes.

^^^^^^^^^^^

How is it a 'tough call'?!  I'd like to torture the bastards first, before killing them, if I were a slave.

[WalterMitty]

really, really tough call. If it was the only way to ensure freedom from oppresion, yes.

^^^^^^^^^^^

How is it a 'tough call'?!  I'd like to torture the bastards first, before killing them, if I were a slave.

you are a slave to your parent's purse strings.  (not trying to give you ideas)

[PBrunsel]

No, not at all. Most tried to follow the ways of Frederick Douglas (escaping then buying your freedom) or simply buying their way to freedom then that barbaric "uprising" led by Nat Turner.

Nat Turner was one of our first domestic terrorists. He killed innocent children in his Virginia uprising.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Turner was wrong. He targeted innocents. Targeting only slave owners and overseers is not the same though.

I don't support the death penalty, but this isn't a legal issue. The slaves were being oppressed by their owners and slavery supporters. One can not simply expect them to lay their and accept it. Taking a bit of a Marxist angle here: "You have nothing to lose but your chains" actually applies here. You need to rebel, it's actually a form of self-defense. Just like killing SS officers in territories the Nazis occupied. The slaves had the right to kill those who were oppressing them, just as the people have the right to overthrow a repressive dictatorship, even if that means killing the dictator (like in Romania). Different from state-sponsored killings.

[A18]

You said you would have no problem killing anyone who supported slavery in any way.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Yes, as it is because of those people that slavery continued to exist.

[A18]

Okay, so you support the death penalty then.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

No, I support armed resistance and revolution.

Supporting the death penalty would be supporting executing everyone in the south who ever supported slavery after the Civil War once slavery was abolished, which I don't, although I think forcing them to work as slaves or stripping them of all their assetts and giving them to the freed slaves would be a good course of action.

[A18]

You can't 'resist' and 'revolt' against someone who doesn't have authority over you.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

You can if they are propping up the people who are.

Would anyone complain if some Jews in one of the ghettos found some weapons and used them to gun down a bunch of people at a Nazi rally?

[A18]

Slave owners don't need 'propping up.' Anyway, you're clearly too dumb to have a conversation with, since you keep switching the target.

I imagine the people shot would complain, as would everyone else with a brain.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Yeah and the people shot are Nazis who would be following Hitler. Who cares what they say?

Yes, slave owners did need propping up. They needed supporters to keep slavery legal.

[A18]

If you consider that 'propping up,' (which it's not) then you can't 'resist' and 'revolt' against people 'propping up' slave owners either.

In any event, you clearly support killing people who take no action against you at all just for having a particular viewpoint that was embraced by God in the Old Testament, and which existed for thousands of years, and yet oppose killing someone who rapped and killed a nine year old girl. Pretty dumb, but I guess no one takes you seriously anyway.

[Cubby]

I certainly don't support the death penalty

You stated: "I voted yes ... Slavery was a horrible crime against humanity."  So you support the death penalty for crimes against humanity.

I certainly don't support the death penalty, only for terrorists like al-Qaeda or Tim McVeigh.

This sentence is a contradiction.  If you wanted to say something coherent, perhaps try "I only support the death penalty for terrorists," not "I don't support the death penalty, except I do."

It was a historical what if question, its not like it has any relevance to today's society.

That does not change the fact that you support the death penalty.

Don't take my response as an insult to your southern heritage.

This is irrelevant and a personal attack.

I didn't realize that every post has to be well thought out and 100% logical. I was just answering off the cuff.

And I'm sorry you felt the last statement was a personal attack, it was the complete opposite, and I'm stunned that you feel that way. All I said was please don't be offended. 

[Ebowed]

I didn't realize that every post has to be well thought out and 100% logical.

Yeah, well, sometimes logic can be a good thing.

And I'm sorry you felt the last statement was a personal attack, it was the complete opposite, and I'm stunned that you feel that way. All I said was please don't be offended.

You implied by talking about my "southern heritage" that I'm a slaveowner sympathizer.  I've seen your bigoted spew before.  You called me a "southern yokel" once too because I said the majority of Americans don't support gay marriage.

[Cubby]

I didn't realize that every post has to be well thought out and 100% logical.

Yeah, well, sometimes logic can be a good thing.

And I'm sorry you felt the last statement was a personal attack, it was the complete opposite, and I'm stunned that you feel that way. All I said was please don't be offended.

You implied by talking about my "southern heritage" that I'm a slaveowner sympathizer.  I've seen your bigoted spew before.  You called me a "southern yokel" once too because I said the majority of Americans don't support gay marriage.

Look I'm not trying to make enemies here, I don't have a problem at all with you. I didn't have any hidden meaning about your heritage.

And lately I've stopped making broad generalizations about Southerners, you're the one who keeps bringing my remark back up. I don't know how else to apologize. I'd write more, but I have to go to bed now.

[Ebowed]

Technically there is no 'southern heritage' of mine to speak of.  I was born in New York.

"And lately I've stopped making broad generalizations about Southerners"

Recently, you responded to a Democrat from Virginia with "How typical of a Southern Democrat" or something similar.

[??????????]

The majority of slaves would have had no reason to kill their owners. Go back and read Storeboughts post. That's pretty much where I stand.

[opebo]

Nat Turner was one of our first domestic terrorists. He killed innocent children in his Virginia uprising.

Good!

The majority of slaves would have had no reason to kill their owners. Go back and read Storeboughts post. That's pretty much where I stand.

You are a fool.  But I suppose I could make use of you - drive up to Missouri and I'll chain you in the backyard, find something for you to do.

[Democratic Hawk]

Nat Turner was one of our first domestic terrorists. He killed innocent children in his Virginia uprising.

Good!

The majority of slaves would have had no reason to kill their owners. Go back and read Storeboughts post. That's pretty much where I stand.

You are a fool.  But I suppose I could make use of you - drive up to Missouri and I'll chain you in the backyard, find something for you to do.

Why should many slaves have had reason to kill their owners? In exchange for their free labour, they received clothes, food and shelter, which in the context of the time was, arguably, somewhat preferable to surviving on a pittance and having to provide everything for themselves

I'd never in a million years condone slavery per se but at least the plantocracy, as a whole, were conciously aware of their moral obligations to care and provide for their slaves and did so. I'm not saying heinous acts of violence were not comitted against slaves but I'd say they were the exception rather than the norm

The pre-Civil War South was primarily a benevolent paternalistic society, where slavery suited the demands of the primarily agrarian economy

Getting back to the question, had my kin been slaughtered by slaves, I may not have been around. Thinking about it like that, along with all else I have said, I'd say slaves were not justified  in killing their owners

Dave

[Moooooo]

Depends on the situation.