>I'm going to kill the slavers and free the blacks! >Pottawatomie massacre

>I'm going to kill the slavers and free the blacks!

>Pottawatomie massacre
>5 people butchered; NONE of them owned slaves
>Raid on Harper's Ferry
>First civilian murdered by his band was freed black man, Heyward Shepherd

It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14

Yakub: World's Greatest Dad Shirt $21.68

It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    He was a schizoid christcuck BBC addict.

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    They owned no slaves yet they were pro-slavery?
    I thought the people who didn't own slaves wanted slavery banned because it meant their labour was more competitive on the market?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      The Pottawatomie massacre was a retaliatory attack on the state of Kansas because pro-slavery forced and abolitionists in the state had previously come to blows, it wasn't because of what anyone in Pottawatomie believed. The raid on Harper's Ferry (a Union arsenal) was to get guns to give to slaves, it didn't have anything to do with slavery itself.

      Anyways, yes, you are correct, I just don't see what that has to do with OP's post.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        I always thought they owned slaves but now I learn they didn't own slaves
        So my question is why they were pro-slavery if they didn't own slaves?

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          There were plenty of non-slaveowners who supported slavery for whatever reason, just like there were plenty of anti-slavery people who were not in favor of abolition (free soilers).

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Free soilers were pro abolition, giant slave plantations was the antithesis to their small farming ideals

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          maybe they thought that one day that they would own them or that God had ordained the Black to serve the white man.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >So my question is why they were pro-slavery if they didn't own slaves?
          They didn't, the area was under the control of pro-slavery factions. The individuals that were murdered didn't have a say in that, Boss Hoss and his posse rolled up, told the mayor that this was their turf, and then Brown and his boys came in and killed a few of them the locals for it.

          If you're asking why the Southerners fought against the Union, that's because they were forced to by their masters (most White Southerners were slaves themselves, either to debt slavery or in some kind of forced bondage) to do so. I mean that literally, most of the Southern forces were effectively drafted penal battalions. There was a minority of middle class free Whites who felt that the Union would enact punitive measures against the Southern Whites because of the actions of the master class. Given how Reconstruction worked, they were right, whether fighting against the Union was the better choice for them or not is a different matter.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            So you dispute what this anon

            https://study.com/academy/lesson/the-pottawatomie-massacre.html
            >None of the victims were slaveholders themselves.

            http://www.nellaware.com/blog/bleeding-kansas-john-brown-and-the-pottawatomie-creek-massacre.html
            >They were pro-slavery, but owned no slaves.

            https://www.tampabay.com/archive/1995/10/08/righteous-rage/
            >The five victims of the Pottawatomie massacre, "pro-slavery" settlers who did not own slaves, were dragged out of their houses and hacked to death with broadswords, their bodies mutilated.

            https://www.google.com/books/edition/Bleeding_Kansas/vhMxDQAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Pottawatomie%20massacre%20%22none%20owned%20slaves%22&pg=PT59&printsec=frontcover
            >None owned slaves but they supported the proslavery party.

            has posted?
            Do you have any proof of that?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            None of what I said is in conflict with his post, and all of it is found in the links that he posted. You would know if you read them.

            >b-b-but
            By "supported the the proslavery faction" the book means that the area was represented in the legislature by a proslavery politician and that the five men didn't like Carpetbaggers. Feel free to read it.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Robert E. Lee was anti-slavery but owned slaves.
          People are frickin' weird.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          cuckoldism

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          they likely didnt actually care until it became a political issue. similar to the way people didnt actually care about who won the superbowl (outside of sportssloppers) until it became political.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      https://study.com/academy/lesson/the-pottawatomie-massacre.html
      >None of the victims were slaveholders themselves.

      http://www.nellaware.com/blog/bleeding-kansas-john-brown-and-the-pottawatomie-creek-massacre.html
      >They were pro-slavery, but owned no slaves.

      https://www.tampabay.com/archive/1995/10/08/righteous-rage/
      >The five victims of the Pottawatomie massacre, "pro-slavery" settlers who did not own slaves, were dragged out of their houses and hacked to death with broadswords, their bodies mutilated.

      https://www.google.com/books/edition/Bleeding_Kansas/vhMxDQAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Pottawatomie%20massacre%20%22none%20owned%20slaves%22&pg=PT59&printsec=frontcover
      >None owned slaves but they supported the proslavery party.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      The majority of the South didn't own slaves because of how expensive they were to buy and how capital-poor the agrarian South was

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >pro-slavery """settlers""" die
    nothing of value was lost

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      You're trans

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    The first Black person worshiping leftoid.

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Developed a lifelong hatred of slavery because he saw a slave boy being whipped when he delivered some cattle to a plantation in the South
    >Routinely whipped his own children and believed it was necessary for their moral development
    ??????

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      He literally deified africans.

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Even proto-leftoids were incompetent morons.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *