Hello,
Under your concept there should have been no Revolutionary, nor Civil War 
(where many people died). I guess you would argue that regardless of the 
inhumanity put on these people, they are always supposed to be laughing 
happy slaves. By the way, the people who decided what was wrong and right, 
were changing the rules and laws as they saw fit.  Although they put 
themselves up as Gods, they were just human beings.

Anita
>From: "Lyle E. Browning" <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history         
>      <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Gov. Kaine Pardons Gabriel Prosser
>Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2007 16:25:58 -0400
>
>Somewhere along the line I've read that two wrongs don't make a  right. 
>Somewhere.
>
>So please let us not trot out these red herrings again.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Lyle Browning
>
>
>On Sep 3, 2007, at 3:49 PM, Anita Wills wrote:
>
>>Yet,
>>Was it not genocide for Europeans to come into the America and  murder 
>>Indians? Was it not genocide to bring millions of Africans  (thousands of 
>>whom died), into the Americas, and strip them of  their identies as human 
>>beings? If Prosser and Turner knew of  genocide they learned it at the 
>>Masters Feet.
>>
>>Anita Wills
>>
>>
>>>From: "Lyle E. Browning" <[log in to unmask]>
>>>Reply-To: Discussion of research and writing about Virginia  history      
>>>         <[log in to unmask]>
>>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>>Subject: Re: Gov. Kaine Pardons Gabriel Prosser
>>>Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2007 15:08:31 -0400
>>>
>>>>From the Associated Press:
>>>>
>>>>"Virginia governor 'pardons' slave who led 'Gabriel's Rebellion'
>>>>The Associated Press
>>>>August 31, 2007
>>>
>>>Where in all this does a comparison of nobility of purpose meet  means  
>>>and methods?
>>>
>>>Rebellion to become free will justifiably be seen as serving the   
>>>nobility of purpose end of the argument. On that, both the Am Rev  and  
>>>Gabriel's Rebellion are equal, albeit at vastly different  scales.
>>>
>>>At the pointy end of the stick, wherein after the Dec. of Ind.  was  
>>>read, measures of a more physical nature were taken. Knowing  full  well 
>>>what would happen once it was read, one can argue that  the Am  Rev 
>>>leaders only had to wait for action to develop as the  authorities  moved 
>>>to put down the venture. Conflict/Civil War  then ensued with  the 
>>>colonials coming out on top.
>>>
>>>In contrast, Turner's higher ideal was simply genocide.   Indiscriminate 
>>>killing of men, women and children is murder,  however  draped in the 
>>>verbiage of freedom.
>>>
>>>What separates the Am Rev and possibly Gabriel, from Turner  certainly  
>>>is the means and methods by which the ideals may be  achieved. The  
>>>Haitian Revolution was at first a bloodbath that  has been later  
>>>sanctified by those at several removes from it  into a glorious  
>>>expression of freedom. That would appear to  lessen the value of the  
>>>lives lost so long as freedom rings. That  kind of specious reasoning  
>>>was also inherent in Stalin, Mao and  Pol Pot, to name but a few whose  
>>>results justified those means.  Haitians ended up switching the color  of 
>>>master, but little of  substance is now discernible, apart from the  
>>>historiography of  the event.
>>>
>>>Gabriel's aim, according to Edgerton, was not genocide, but rather  a  
>>>negotiated settlement ending slavery. However, what muddies  the  waters 
>>>is the issue of statements made concerning the conduct  of the  
>>>rebellion. Basically, join or die seems to have been the  directive,  
>>>apart from Methodists, Quakers and Frenchmen. Is  Edgerton generally  
>>>viewed as reading the documents correctly or  has he ventured rather  far 
>>>out onto the revisionist limb?
>>>
>>>For those of you who will undoubtedly jump into the fray, I am  well  
>>>aware that in the Am Rev, there were quasi- institutionalized  incidents 
>>>of brutal behavior on both Colonial  and Tory sides, similar  probably to 
>>>the Border Wars in the 1850's  onward.
>>>
>>>State to state relations were the ideal and the practice during  the  Am 
>>>Rev, not using genocide as a means of igniting conflict.  The  questions 
>>>are: Did Gabriel advocate genocide, was he unable  to  control more 
>>>volatile elements in his group, was genocidal  advocacy  legitimately 
>>>placed at his door?
>>>
>>>Lyle Browning
>>
>>_________________________________________________________________
>>Test your celebrity IQ.  Play Red Carpet Reveal and earn great  prizes! 
>>http://club.live.com/red_carpet_reveal.aspx? 
>>icid=redcarpet_hotmailtextlink2

_________________________________________________________________
Get the device you want, with the HotmailŪ you love. 
http://www.windowsmobile.com/hotmailmobile?ocid=MobileHMTagline_1