Conditions ripe for uprising across America

[Seth]

You betray your ignorance of history if you claim that the civil rights movement supports any aspect of an argument for violent revolution. It was a movement of non-violent protest in the main. It was a victory for humanitarianism, for progressive political forces, but not a victory of doctrinaire marxism...

If you are referring to MLK's legacy, I suppose. But there were also others (at least, here in the US) who had a significant impact on the civil rights movement, and they did argue for violent revolution. Lest we forget Malcolm X, and the Black Panthers, to name a couple.

And William Ayers and Bernadine Dhorn, both of whom are friends of Obama's, among others.

[sandinista]

You betray your ignorance of history if you claim that the civil rights movement supports any aspect of an argument for violent revolution. It was a movement of non-violent protest in the main. It was a victory for humanitarianism, for progressive political forces, but not a victory of doctrinaire marxism...

If you are referring to MLK's legacy, I suppose. But there were also others (at least, here in the US) who had a significant impact on the civil rights movement, and they did argue for violent revolution. Lest we forget Malcolm X, and the Black Panthers, to name a couple.

They argued for it, but didn't get it, largely because the mass of the people involved saw clearly that they were romantic and delusional fools, and preferred the pragmatism of dogged and hard-working reformers.

Yah, the Black Panthers were "fools". Nice revisionist history. What happened was assassinations, covert actions and repression by the state towards, not only the Black Liberation movement, but the American Indian Movement as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO

[Seth]

You betray your ignorance of history if you claim that the civil rights movement supports any aspect of an argument for violent revolution. It was a movement of non-violent protest in the main. It was a victory for humanitarianism, for progressive political forces, but not a victory of doctrinaire marxism...

If you are referring to MLK's legacy, I suppose. But there were also others (at least, here in the US) who had a significant impact on the civil rights movement, and they did argue for violent revolution. Lest we forget Malcolm X, and the Black Panthers, to name a couple.

They argued for it, but didn't get it, largely because the mass of the people involved saw clearly that they were romantic and delusional fools, and preferred the pragmatism of dogged and hard-working reformers.

Yah, the Black Panthers were "fools". Nice revisionist history. What happened was assassinations, covert actions and repression by the state towards, not only the Black Liberation movement, but the American Indian Movement as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO

Suppressing insurrection and treasonous attempts to violently overthrow the U.S. government is a legitimate government duty and objective.

[sandinista]

Seth

Suppressing insurrection and treasonous attempts to violently overthrow the U.S. government is a legitimate government duty and objective.

You could take out the "U.S." from that sentence, no? Saying that, any government action, anywhere, to suppress insurrection is legitimate, correct?

[Robert_S]

COINTELPRO tactics included discrediting targets through psychological warfare, planting false reports in the media, smearing through forged letters, harassment, wrongful imprisonment, extralegal violence and assassination. Covert operations under COINTELPRO took place between 1956 and 1971, however the FBI has used covert operations against domestic political groups since its inception.[2] The FBI's stated motivation at the time was "protecting national security, preventing violence, and maintaining the existing social and political order."[3]

FBI records show that 85% of COINTELPRO resources targeted groups and individuals that the FBI deemed "subversive,"[4] including communist and socialist organizations; organizations and individuals associated with the civil rights movement, including Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and others associated with the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and the Congress of Racial Equality and other civil rights organizations; black nationalist groups; the American Indian Movement; a broad range of organizations labeled "New Left", including Students for a Democratic Society and the Weathermen; almost all groups protesting the Vietnam War, as well as individual student demonstrators with no group affiliation; the National Lawyers Guild; organizations and individuals associated with the women's rights movement; nationalist groups such as those seeking "independence for Puerto Rico" and a United Ireland; and additional notable Americans, such as Albert Einstein. The remaining 15% of COINTELPRO resources were expended to marginalize and subvert "white hate groups," including the Ku Klux Klan and the National States' Rights Party.[5]

[Seth]

Seth

Suppressing insurrection and treasonous attempts to violently overthrow the U.S. government is a legitimate government duty and objective.

You could take out the "U.S." from that sentence, no? Saying that, any government action, anywhere, to suppress insurrection is legitimate, correct?

Yup, you could, if the government in question is a legitimate Constitutional Republic that respects the rights of the individual and the rule of law, and is not a socialist, communist or other despotic tyranny of either the left or right.

For the citizens of socialist, communist or other despotic tyrannies, insurrection is a civil right because it is the government that is illegitimate.

For example, sedition and insurrection against the government of the United States is illegitimate. However, insurrection against the government of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, or Castro, or France for that matter, is legitimate, becasue those governments are despotic tyrannies.

[sandinista]

Seth

Suppressing insurrection and treasonous attempts to violently overthrow the U.S. government is a legitimate government duty and objective.

You could take out the "U.S." from that sentence, no? Saying that, any government action, anywhere, to suppress insurrection is legitimate, correct?

Yup, you could, if the government in question is a legitimate Constitutional Republic that respects the rights of the individual and the rule of law, and is not a socialist, communist or other despotic tyranny of either the left or right.

For the citizens of socialist, communist or other despotic tyrannies, insurrection is a civil right because it is the government that is illegitimate.

For example, sedition and insurrection against the government of the United States is illegitimate. However, insurrection against the government of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, or Castro, or France for that matter, is legitimate, becasue those governments are despotic tyrannies.

that's what I thought.

[Robert_S]

Seth

Suppressing insurrection and treasonous attempts to violently overthrow the U.S. government is a legitimate government duty and objective.

You could take out the "U.S." from that sentence, no? Saying that, any government action, anywhere, to suppress insurrection is legitimate, correct?

Yup, you could, if the government in question is a legitimate Constitutional Republic that respects the rights of the individual and the rule of law, and is not a socialist, communist or other despotic tyranny of either the left or right.

For the citizens of socialist, communist or other despotic tyrannies, insurrection is a civil right because it is the government that is illegitimate.

For example, sedition and insurrection against the government of the United States is illegitimate. However, insurrection against the government of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, or Castro, or France for that matter, is legitimate, becasue those governments are despotic tyrannies.

If there is a group of people who live in a Constitutional Republic yet are formally and informally excluded from full participation and denied the benefits and rights of living in it, do they have the right to violently insurrect?

[sandinista]

Seth

Suppressing insurrection and treasonous attempts to violently overthrow the U.S. government is a legitimate government duty and objective.

You could take out the "U.S." from that sentence, no? Saying that, any government action, anywhere, to suppress insurrection is legitimate, correct?

Yup, you could, if the government in question is a legitimate Constitutional Republic that respects the rights of the individual and the rule of law, and is not a socialist, communist or other despotic tyranny of either the left or right.

For the citizens of socialist, communist or other despotic tyrannies, insurrection is a civil right because it is the government that is illegitimate.

For example, sedition and insurrection against the government of the United States is illegitimate. However, insurrection against the government of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, or Castro, or France for that matter, is legitimate, becasue those governments are despotic tyrannies.

If there is a group of people who live in a Constitutional Republic yet are formally and informally excluded from full participation and denied the benefits and rights of living in it, do they have the right to violently insurrect?

Anywhere but in Merika!

[Coito ergo sum]

It's like Ben Franklin said during the violent American Revolution - We must all hang together, or we will most assuredly all hang separately.

The Americans claimed the right to independence in 1776, and set forth the basis on which they claimed that right. The British saw it differently. There was no objective decision-maker that would bind the two parties, so the right was decided by the revolution. The Americans won their independence. They won their rights. Had they lost, they'd have been hanged as traitors.

That's what is meant by the old saws in American lore - The Tree of Liberty must be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants." And, "the price of liberty is eternal vigilance."

In the real world rights are taken, fought for, and defended. They can be lost.

It's fanciful to talk of a right to violently revolt, as if the governments of the US or Libya or Russia or Great Britain or Great White North are just going to sit by and let you claim that you're not granted "full participation" and so "oh, jee golly wiz willackers we'll just let you hack and burn....it's your right." Of course they're not going to do that. They're going to take the position that you have sufficient participation, and that you have no right to revolt.

[Seth]

Seth

Suppressing insurrection and treasonous attempts to violently overthrow the U.S. government is a legitimate government duty and objective.

You could take out the "U.S." from that sentence, no? Saying that, any government action, anywhere, to suppress insurrection is legitimate, correct?

Yup, you could, if the government in question is a legitimate Constitutional Republic that respects the rights of the individual and the rule of law, and is not a socialist, communist or other despotic tyranny of either the left or right.

For the citizens of socialist, communist or other despotic tyrannies, insurrection is a civil right because it is the government that is illegitimate.

For example, sedition and insurrection against the government of the United States is illegitimate. However, insurrection against the government of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, or Castro, or France for that matter, is legitimate, becasue those governments are despotic tyrannies.

If there is a group of people who live in a Constitutional Republic yet are formally and informally excluded from full participation and denied the benefits and rights of living in it, do they have the right to violently insurrect?

When you say "full participation" and "benefits and rights" what do you mean, exactly? Do you mean YOUR definition of "full participation" and "benefits and rights," or the definitions that apply based on what the society recognizes as such?

And have these persons been denied their right to petition for redress of grievances or their right to due process of law?

[Robert_S]

Seth

Suppressing insurrection and treasonous attempts to violently overthrow the U.S. government is a legitimate government duty and objective.

You could take out the "U.S." from that sentence, no? Saying that, any government action, anywhere, to suppress insurrection is legitimate, correct?

Yup, you could, if the government in question is a legitimate Constitutional Republic that respects the rights of the individual and the rule of law, and is not a socialist, communist or other despotic tyranny of either the left or right.

For the citizens of socialist, communist or other despotic tyrannies, insurrection is a civil right because it is the government that is illegitimate.

For example, sedition and insurrection against the government of the United States is illegitimate. However, insurrection against the government of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, or Castro, or France for that matter, is legitimate, becasue those governments are despotic tyrannies.

If there is a group of people who live in a Constitutional Republic yet are formally and informally excluded from full participation and denied the benefits and rights of living in it, do they have the right to violently insurrect?

When you say "full participation" and "benefits and rights" what do you mean, exactly? Do you mean YOUR definition of "full participation" and "benefits and rights," or the definitions that apply based on what the society recognizes as such?

And have these persons been denied their right to petition for redress of grievances or their right to due process of law?

I'm talking about the situation of the descendants of African slaves in the United States post civil war and pre civil rights movement.

[sandinista]

I'm talking about the situation of the descendants of African slaves in the United States post civil war and pre civil rights movement.

[Seth]

I'm talking about the situation of the descendants of African slaves in the United States post civil war and pre civil rights movement.

Well, they certainly had a right to demand that the states, and individuals in those states, respect the Constitution and the end of slavery resulting from the Civil War that extended civil rights to blacks. Self defense against violations of their civil rights by private persons is certainly authorized, even in the absence of state enforcement, and that would include group self defense against attack. As for rebellion against the state, they sought redress from the federal government, and eventually got it. It's difficult to say in regards to the laws of the south and even of the United States, because in many cases discrimination just short of slavery was enshrined in law. It was the overturning of those laws resulting from changes in public attitudes nationwide that eventually quashed most overt discrimination in the South.

Would blacks have been justified in insurrection against the southern states? I doubt it, given that they had not exhausted their lawful avenues of redress of grievances. Resorting to violence before doing so is generally not seen as legitimate use of force.

One of the things about insurrection is that the victor writes the history, and one man's revolution is another's insurrection. If one chooses insurrection, one needs to win, or one is likely to die or be imprisoned.

Objectively speaking, I would say that revolution is justifiable only when all lawful avenues of peaceful redress of grievances have been exhausted and the group is being physically oppressed and denied due process of law. But remember that due process does not necessarily mean that a group's complaints will be vindicated, it merely means that their petition will be given due legal consideration. Ultimately, what any society recognizes as "rights" is a complex matter of history and consensus.

The distinction between "revolution" and "rebellion or insurrection" is a fine one, and the viewpoints of the parties involved will obviously be different.

Were blacks justified in starting a revolution against the slave states prior to the Civil War? Absolutely. And the slave owners knew it, and worked hard to prevent them from organizing and arming precisely to prevent that eventuality. There were several attempted insurrections by blacks during the period, all of which were brutally suppressed, with many deaths.

Most people outside the U.S., and many inside it, condemn the Founders as "slave owners" and cite the fact that slavery was not abolished immediately without understanding the facts, nor do they understand that the "Three-fifths" provision of the Constitution regarding slaves in the south was not an expression of approval of slavery, it was a brilliant move by Abolitionists to eventually end slavery. The problem that the non-slave states faced with getting the slave states to agree to the Union in the first place was the issue of representation in Congress. The Abolitionists wanted to disregard ALL slaves from the count for representation, but the slave states would not agree to ratify the Constitution if they did so. The Three-Fifth's Compromise REDUCED the representation of the slave states in the Congress to help prevent, as much as possible, the slave states from holding on to a majority in the Congress.

Despite this, Southern Democrats maintained a strong enough presence in the Congress and indeed the Presidency to prevent any outright vote on abolishing slavery right up until the Civil War.

Even through the Louisiana Purchase and other westward expansions, the bickering between the slave states and Abolitionist states was heated. The South insisted on "parity" in the formation of new states so that the representative balance in Congress would remain, precisely so that the Abolitionists would not have the votes in Congress to ban slavery.

That delicate balance was maintained until the Civil War.

After the Civil War, the realities of Reconstruction, and lingering anti-black resentment, lead to worse offenses against blacks than at any time prior. Because blacks were free, and no longer property, whites in the south saw no reason to protect them as an investment, and lynchings and murders were commonplace during the Reconstruction.

There is no doubt that blacks of the period had every right to self defense, including defense against rogue elements of the states, and to some extent, the North tried to impose law and order during the Reconstruction, although federal efforts in that regard were abysmally lacking right up until the Civil Rights Era.

The problem, of course, is that a "free black" insurrection after the Civil War would have threatened the tenuous peace achieved by the Civil War, and the nation was exhausted and was not willing to defend free blacks nearly as vigorously as it should have. But at the same time, the North could not afford to let a black insurrection further destabilize things, so it would, and did, continue to suppress the full exercise of rights by freed blacks for years after the end of the war.

The lingering animosities of southern whites manifested itself in oppression just short of slavery (share-cropping) and segregation laws, and no small amount of outright murder of blacks that were ignored by state authorities.

Any insurrection by blacks during that period would have been suppressed in order to maintain peace and order in general, so it's just as well that no large-scale insurrection was attempted.

Dr. Martin Luther King, and others, recognized that force would not win the day for blacks, and that only the force of public opinion and oppribrum against the abuses of blacks institutuionalized by the southern states would succeed. This was a wise decision indeed, because it achieved the goal without insurrection.

[sandinista]

I am for violence if non-violence means we continue postponing a solution to the American black man's problem just to avoid violence.

Nonviolence is fine as long as it works.

Malcolm X