John Brown. Hero or Terrorist?

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,559
4
0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Brown_(abolitionist)

John Brown (May 9, 1800 ? December 2, 1859) was an American abolitionist who advocated and practiced armed insurrection as a means to end all slavery. He led the Pottawatomie Massacre in 1856 in Bleeding Kansas and made his name in the unsuccessful raid at Harpers Ferry in 1859.

President Abraham Lincoln said he was a "misguided fanatic" and Brown has been called "the most controversial of all 19th-century Americans."[1] His attempt in 1859 to start a liberation movement among enslaved African Americans in Harpers Ferry, Virginia electrified the nation. He was tried for treason against the state of Virginia, the murder of five proslavery Southerners, and inciting a slave insurrection and was subsequently hanged. Southerners alleged that his rebellion was the tip of the abolitionist iceberg and represented the wishes of the Republican Party. Historians agree that the Harpers Ferry raid in 1859 escalated tensions that a year later led to secession and the American Civil War.

Brown first gained attention when he led small groups of volunteers during the Bleeding Kansas crisis. Unlike most other Northerners, who still advocated peaceful resistance to the pro-slavery faction, Brown demanded violent action in response to Southern aggression. Dissatisfied with the pacifism encouraged by the organized abolitionist movement, he reportedly said "These men are all talk. What we need is action - action!" [2] During the Kansas campaign he and his supporters killed five pro-slavery southerners in what became known as the Pottawatomie Massacre in May 1856, in response to the raid of the "free soil" city of Lawrence. In 1859 he led a raid on the federal armory at Harpers Ferry, Virginia (in modern-day West Virginia). During the raid, he seized the armory; seven people (including a free black) were killed, and ten or more were injured. He intended to arm slaves with weapons from the arsenal, but the attack failed. Within 36 hours, Brown's men had fled or been killed or captured by local farmers, militiamen, and U.S. Marines led by Robert E. Lee. Brown's subsequent capture by federal forces, his trial for treason to the state of Virginia, and his execution by hanging in Charles Town, Virginia were an important part of the origins of the American Civil War, which followed sixteen months later.



If a German had led an insurrection against Hitler to free the Jews would we call him a hero or a terrorist?
If your government is committing terrorism in enslaving a portion of your population are you justified in armed insurrection? Interesting the wiki article goes on to note that John Brown is considered the 'father of American terrorism'
While many Americans have openly proclaimed they will fight to the death any attempt to take away what they believe to be their Constitutional right to bear arms, is that different than what John Brown did? If you can claim your own interpretation of your Constitution justifies your actions is that any different from John Browns claim that slavery was immoral due to Gods law?

btw inspired by a History Channel show.

 

XMan

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
12,513
49
91
There's a thin line. Terrorists kill civilians . . . which, I believe, John Brown did. No excuse for that, no matter how noble his ideals were. That distinction colors all three of your questions. It's dependent on the context of your actions. If the German's methods of attempting to bring down Hitler had included car bombs in front of civilian locales, then yes, he would be considered a terrorist.

Ideally the example of MLK or Ghandi is the best way to go, but obviously they were dealing with relatively reasonable people in the Americans and British. Had either been in, say, Soviet-controlled Eastern Europe, passive dissent would have resulted in a quick trip to the gulag.
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
Terrorist.

He killed civilians for essentially doing something that was perfectly legal under the law at the time.

That's not to say that his cause was not just, but his methods were not.
 

dphantom

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2005
4,763
327
126
Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Terrorist.

He killed civilians for essentially doing something that was perfectly legal under the law at the time.

That's not to say that his cause was not just, but his methods were not.

+1
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
Originally posted by: XMan
There's a thin line. Terrorists kill civilians . . . which, I believe, John Brown did. No excuse for that, no matter how noble his ideals were. That distinction colors all three of your questions. It's dependent on the context of your actions. If the German's methods of attempting to bring down Hitler had included car bombs in front of civilian locales, then yes, he would be considered a terrorist.

Ideally the example of MLK or Ghandi is the best way to go, but obviously they were dealing with relatively reasonable people in the Americans and British. Had either been in, say, Soviet-controlled Eastern Europe, passive dissent would have resulted in a quick trip to the gulag.

Perfect answer IMO. :thumbsup:
 

jackschmittusa

Diamond Member
Apr 16, 2003
5,972
1
0
John Brown's actions were by definition, those of a terrorist. Whether he was justified or not is an entirely different question.

I have no doubt that if such actions were repeated today, the result would likely be a death sentence.
 
Nov 29, 2006
15,859
4,417
136
Reminds me of:

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson

Sometimes action is the only way to get anything done unfortunatly. You can protest your voice all you want but if nothing ever happens you have to up the stakes.

But yeah killing the innocent on purpose is terrorism. But all in all id mark him down as a Hero in my eyes.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Terrorist.

He killed civilians for essentially doing something that was perfectly legal under the law at the time.

That's not to say that his cause was not just, but his methods were not.

There it is.
 

rudder

Lifer
Nov 9, 2000
19,441
86
91
If he supported a third party candidate or owned a weapon... then he is classified as a terrorist.
 

3chordcharlie

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,859
1
81
Originally posted by: soulcougher73
Reminds me of:

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson

Sometimes action is the only way to get anything done unfortunatly. You can protest your voice all you want but if nothing ever happens you have to up the stakes.

But yeah killing the innocent on purpose is terrorism. But all in all id mark him down as a Hero in my eyes.
Maintaining public terror is terrorism. Killing innocent people happens to be a good way to do this, though certainly not the only way.

Governments are engaged in terrorism at all times, even if *most* no longer murder citizens with any great regularity.

It's the great irony of the world governments' war on terror - what they really need is a monopoly on terror to make sure people keep paying their taxes.
 

MotF Bane

No Lifer
Dec 22, 2006
60,801
10
0
Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Terrorist.

He killed civilians for essentially doing something that was perfectly legal under the law at the time.

That's not to say that his cause was not just, but his methods were not.

/thread
 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,994
779
126
Slave owners are not 'innocent' in my eyes. Don't see why he can't be a hero and a terrorist.
 

magomago

Lifer
Sep 28, 2002
10,973
14
76
Originally posted by: XMan
There's a thin line. Terrorists kill civilians . . . which, I believe, John Brown did. No excuse for that, no matter how noble his ideals were. That distinction colors all three of your questions. It's dependent on the context of your actions. If the German's methods of attempting to bring down Hitler had included car bombs in front of civilian locales, then yes, he would be considered a terrorist.

Ideally the example of MLK or Ghandi is the best way to go, but obviously they were dealing with relatively reasonable people in the Americans and British. Had either been in, say, Soviet-controlled Eastern Europe, passive dissent would have resulted in a quick trip to the gulag.

On the topic of India, I would disagree. Britian let go of India not because of some feel good feelings of freedom, and being convinced that a free India under Indian rule was the best way to go, but because it simply couldn't control it any longer.

Ghandi's peaceful methods worked because a) Britian was half a world away b) Their control in India was partially indirect through the Raj c) They were drained after WW2 (which was also an argument for many European countries to KEEP their colonies: they were so drained, they NEEDED the colonies to rebuild! What assholes) that peaceful protest worked well. When you are half way across the world, a good chunk of your bureacracy in far away lands are not considered reliable (remember, the Raj didn't employ only Brits), and you are in a bunch of debt and your local population is angry...its not easy to stay in control. Add into the mix those that were willing to entertain some form of greater independence from Britian, and you have huge problems.

Of course, you need to remember a lot of the Indian rebellions and the, anything but 'reasonable', methods that were used to put them down. Of course we can also recall the opinion of Winston Churchill at the time - he was vociferously opposed to independence from Britian. Then again he was an incredible racist would who have probably been fine killing all non whites. Of course, he is viewed favorably in history...because he wrote it.

My view will be as follows: if a person is not involved in direct hostilities, they should not be a target even if they benefit from the circumstances that have been created. Practically, killing the slave holders was really about inciting flames. Even if their rebellion was successful and theoretically spread over a huge area, I'm sure that they would have viciously attacked anyone and created mass slaughter. I'm not for making more wrongs out of a wrong situation. I will say this though: if their goal was more defensive in nature - seize the arms, grab a patch of land, and protect any slaves that get through, then I'd be all for it.

I think the period in time also matters. Back then he'd be a terrorist. But today, many more people would definitely think about putting him in the hero, even if mis guided, category.

Good intentions and messages can still be put into action in a wrong way. I can still support an idea even if some people who also support that idea go about the wrong actions.
 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
Originally posted by: XMan
Ideally the example of MLK or Ghandi is the best way to go, but obviously they were dealing with relatively reasonable people in the Americans and British.

MKL and Gandhi didn't exist in vacuums, their non-violent approaches gained legitimacy though contrast to the violence conducted by others who fought for the same rights:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...ace_riots.2C_1963-1970

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...nts:_transfer_of_power

Without such violence, it is likely the vioces of reason from MKL and Gandhi would have been ingored.

Also note that Nelson Mandela was considered a terrorist by our government until just a few months ago:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7484517.stm
 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
Originally posted by: magomago
I think the period in time also matters. Back then he'd be a terrorist. But today, many more people would definitely think about putting him in the hero, even if mis guided, category.
Exactly. a misguided man with a righteous goal. Here in Lawrence we brew beer in his honor:

John Brown Ale Named for John Brown, the fiery abolitionist from the U.S. Civil War era. Brown is a well known (though often overly romanticized) figure in Kansas history. His actions in support of the free-staters in the 1850s was quite notable but also quite violent and vengeful. A religious zealot with a long family history of insanity, one of Brown's favorite maxims was "Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins". During his colorful career with the free state militia, Brown made sure that there was no shortage of the remissions of sins.

But on a lighter note, his namesake ale is actually a very mild, pleasant brown ale with a definite emphasis on the malt rather than the hops. Made from a choice selection of malts, this is a bit sweeter than the Ad Astra, but not quite so sweet as a bock beer.

http://www.freestatebrewing.com/FSBAllBeers.html
 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,994
779
126
Originally posted by: Possessed Freak
Originally posted by: Phokus
Slave owners are not 'innocent' in my eyes. Don't see why he can't be a hero and a terrorist.
By definition of the law, yes they were.

By standard of morality, no they weren't.
 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,994
779
126
Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Originally posted by: XMan
Ideally the example of MLK or Ghandi is the best way to go, but obviously they were dealing with relatively reasonable people in the Americans and British.

MKL and Gandhi didn't exist in vacuums, their non-violent approaches gained legitimacy though contrast to the violence conducted by others who fought for the same rights:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...ace_riots.2C_1963-1970

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...nts:_transfer_of_power

Without such violence, it is likely the vioces of reason from MKL and Gandhi would have been ingored.

Also note that Nelson Mandela was considered a terrorist by our government until just a few months ago:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7484517.stm

Pretty much, without Malcolm X, MLK wouldn't be as relevant. Plus, after MLK's assassination, there were huge riots and violence throughout many cities in the USA. I think whites 'got' the picture after that and the civil rights movement gained more traction.

It's no wonder why conservatives hate protests and rioting after that, the white power structure and dominance over blacks was severely damaged because people stood up and took decisive action.
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,559
4
0
Originally posted by: Possessed Freak
Originally posted by: Phokus
Slave owners are not 'innocent' in my eyes. Don't see why he can't be a hero and a terrorist.
By definition of the law, yes they were.
By your definition the Nazis who killed people in the death camps are innocent.

 
May 16, 2000
13,522
0
0
Originally posted by: XMan
There's a thin line. Terrorists kill civilians . . . which, I believe, John Brown did. No excuse for that, no matter how noble his ideals were. That distinction colors all three of your questions. It's dependent on the context of your actions. If the German's methods of attempting to bring down Hitler had included car bombs in front of civilian locales, then yes, he would be considered a terrorist.

Ideally the example of MLK or Ghandi is the best way to go, but obviously they were dealing with relatively reasonable people in the Americans and British. Had either been in, say, Soviet-controlled Eastern Europe, passive dissent would have resulted in a quick trip to the gulag.

Were those civilians actively participating in:

a) the action which he was fighting against

b) trying to stop him from fighting against the injustice

c) none of the above

If it's none of the above, then he was a terrorist. If it was either of the other two, they got what they deserved.

The problem with Brown was, it really was the third option. The people he killed at the Pottawatomie Massacre were likely pro-slavery, but as far as I know he had no solid proof that they had been involved in the earlier violence against abolitionists, nor have I read that those citizens were themselves slave owners. That represents a serious problem for the revolutionary. Now, were those things true (slave owners or previous violence) THEN I fully support his actions.

The Harpers Ferry raid was likewise compromised. While one could argue that by allowing slavery the full US government was culpable, it was obvious that the bulk of the government at the time was working against that institution. Therefore a raid against those holdings could be excusable only if there was a need for what was stored there (Brown had no where near enough persons willing to fight to require such a weapon's cache), AND if he first made every attempt to minimize collateral damage (as far as I know he made no pleas, struck no deals, arranged no diversions, etc).
 
May 16, 2000
13,522
0
0
Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Terrorist.

He killed civilians for essentially doing something that was perfectly legal under the law at the time.

That's not to say that his cause was not just, but his methods were not.

Legality is totally irrelevant. An individual MUST do what is right, no matter what. Anyone who does less lessens humanity itself in turn, and is equally culpable of any offenses.
 

Andrew1990

Banned
Mar 8, 2008
2,153
0
0
Originally posted by: techs
Originally posted by: Possessed Freak
Originally posted by: Phokus
Slave owners are not 'innocent' in my eyes. Don't see why he can't be a hero and a terrorist.
By definition of the law, yes they were.
By your definition the Nazis who killed people in the death camps are innocent.

If the nazi government was still in power, they would then be innocent. What is right and wrong is written in history by the winning side.
 
May 16, 2000
13,522
0
0
Originally posted by: Andrew1990
Originally posted by: techs
Originally posted by: Possessed Freak
Originally posted by: Phokus
Slave owners are not 'innocent' in my eyes. Don't see why he can't be a hero and a terrorist.
By definition of the law, yes they were.
By your definition the Nazis who killed people in the death camps are innocent.

If the nazi government was still in power, they would then be innocent. What is right and wrong is written in history by the winning side.

No, that doesn't define right and wrong - merely what is claimed to be right and wrong. That claim holds no sway however. True right and wrong transcend laws, popularity, etc.
 

jackschmittusa

Diamond Member
Apr 16, 2003
5,972
1
0
PrinceofWands

"doing what is right" is totally in the mind of the individual. I imagine even suicide bombers are sure they are right when they push the button. No doubt The Crusades, Manifest Destiny, and myriad other actions were undertaken by people who thought they were right. But seen from another time, another perspective, one might suggest that they were not so "right".

If you believe that the end justifies the means, then feel free to murder for the sake of the greater good.
 

Schadenfroh

Elite Member
Mar 8, 2003
38,416
4
0
Brown was a religious extremist that twisted an interpretation of the Bible to justify his actions. Some of those actions involved terrorism. He was every bit as dangerous / crazed as a modern day abortion clinic bomber. The goal of eliminating slavery is just, but it was his methods that made him a terrorist.