Midnight Rising, Part I, Chapters 1-6: The Road to Harpers Ferry
Comment on any aspect of Chapters 1-6. What questions come to mind? What were some memorable parts for you and why? Remember, keep it limited to 1-2 paragraphs. You can have an initial post or respond to someone else's post.
Well, I think that we can agree that John Brown was a fanatic, but beyond that, it's really a question of what time period we're considering. The man who bathed a lamb in his household tub was hardly comparable to the one that slaughtered five civilians (and mutilated their corpses) in Pottawatomie. The former could be a Disney protagonist, whereas the latter seems a clear-cut terrorist. I was particularly struck by the reason he wrote his brief autobiography: a child gave him thirty cents for his cause and he gave the piece to him as a gift. True, he had political motives in writing it, but his later inability to compromise and political ineptitude suggest that he simply wanted to instruct, as any good Calvinist would.
As far as insanity goes, his state of mind wasn't put into question until Harper's Ferry was almost upon him. Even then, his eccentricities were barely indistinguishable from religious fervor and egotism. While he certainly lacked the elements of common sense (frugality and a capacity to admit failings/failure), he didn't seem to be overly out of touch with reality. In fact, his eccentricity could well have contributed to his unusual tolerance for both Native and African Americans.
Loyalty would be an understatement in describing John Brown's ardent devotion to God, and this undeniable fanaticism could easily be mistaken for insanity. Like Althea said, he didn't seem too out of touch with reality, but rather so possessed by his beliefs and missions that his faith often overcame his ability to rationalize. The intense passion that he held made him restless to the point where he had an insatiable craving for action. I thought it was interesting how, in Kansas, Brown impatiently waited for any reason to launch a strike against the South and its "peculiar institution." It is tempting to call Brown crazy, but at this point I don't think there is enough evidence to do such.
The question of whether John Brown is a hero or terrorist can be answered either way, completely based on the lens through which you look at his actions. He was a hero in that he made sacrifices for a greater cause that he believed in, even involving his children when he knew that their lives were at stake. He fought for freedom and equal rights, both of which are values that our country proudly displays today. On the other hand, Brown could be viewed as a "long-bearded fundamentalist," no different from the members of al-Qaeda, who spread violence and wreaked havoc throughout the country. Do you think John Brown should be admired or condemned?
John Brown's absolute devotion to slavery, a cause so much greater than himself, ultimately consumes his life. As Hillman mentions, this passionate devotion could be mistaken for insanity. "Insanity" certainly is not the right word choice to describe John Brown because he has reasoning to his sometimes relentless missions, seriously believes in a religion which clearly drives him to wholeheartedly sticking with his cause, and has a series of intelligent and prominent followers such as Frederick Douglass. Another reason Brown could be incorrectly stamped as insane is because of his athirst character. Since Brown is so restless for action, events such as the Pottawatomie Massacre label his cause as violent and impulsive. Although Brown shows complete consecration to exterminating slavery, he does not show insanity.
Although one could characterize John Brown as a hero or a terrorist, I personally do not think he should be labeled either. He shows dedication to a principle greater than himself in order to better humanity, but he believes the only way to rid of slavery, a savage and violent practice, is bloodshed. Brown is motivated by his faith and moral beliefs to exterminate slavery and reinstitute a new government, but he still should not be defined as a terrorist. He does not necessarily strive to terrorize innocent people, although that is sometimes an effect after the fact. I believe he is trying to greater humanity within the country, but truly believes there is no other way to do so besides violence.
I found the part mentioning Brown's upbringing and his fierce adherence to his religious views interesting in the emphasis on the fact that all sinners, including himself, need to pay for theirs sins. Clearly Brown sees slavery as a sin and feels all who practice it must repent. I feel like Brown was acting on impulse from his years of strictly following this ideal and, to answer Hillman's question, I believe Brown should be condemned as a terrorist because of it. I personally cannot call someone who senselessly kills people because their beliefs oppose their own, like he did to the 5 proslavery supporters in Kansas, a hero. Add to this the fact that devotion to a cause is a characteristic shared by every terrorist the world has ever known. Despite the fact that it may or may not have been necessary to rebel against the Sourtherners in Kansas, Brown did exactly nothing to help the situation, he only added fuel to the fire and made a bad reputation for himself and his family.
John Brown’s Calvinist upbringing and intense outlook corrupts his honorable mission: to abolish slavery completely. While it is clear he loathed a loathsome tradition, Brown’s irrational actions, such as at the Pottawatomie Massacre, prove disastrous for himself and his cause.
I think it is clear John Brown’s abolitionist goals were tainted by his fervent hatred for slavery and anyone who supported it, but I do not believe he was either extreme: a hero or a terrorist. It was not heroic to anyone, including the enslaved people, to murder proslavery men. I can understand how Brown’s impulsivity and mercilessness can label him a terrorist; however, I do not believe his rash actions merely worsened the situation and damaged his and his family’s reputation, as Alex says. Rather, he made Northerners and Southerners alike realize slavery would not and should not continue unopposed. I do not agree with the way he went about protesting slavery; however, the mission was certainly not completely lost.
John Brown's obsession with the abolition of slavery can be easily traced to his devout Christian roots and fierce devotion to God and the Bible. To answer Hillman's question, I believe that John Brown is someone to be admired. In a time where slavery was thriving in the United States, he was willing to take a stand for what he believed in despite the fact that the abolitionist movement was, at the time, largely unpopular. Although perhaps his methodology was not the best, I believe that his passion and intent are laudable. I do not agree with Brown's decision to murder proslavery men in Kansas, however when you see Brown's point of view he felt that it was something that had to be done. His decision-making was rather questionable at times, and I think that the reason for this is that the issue of abolition truly drove him crazy and became the primary focus of his life. He was willing to put the issue of abolition before the wellbeing of his own family. That kind of selflessness is praiseworthy despite his controversial methodology.
John Brown was not very successful in several aspects of his life, but strived in organizing movements against proslavery forces. I believe that his selfless devotion to abolishing slavery caused civilians to believe in his efforts and want to help. They flocked to Brown because of his tenacity and relentlessness towards the cause. Brown dedicated his life to this cause and would do anything for it; even if it inflicted hardship on his family and himself. Because of this he was greatly respected as a leader by many. He was willing to put his life at risk to help the cause, which inspired other, including most of his children, to do the same.
I agree with Spencer that John Brown is someone to be admired. All of his children greatly admired the work that he did and many of them followed in their father’s footsteps. However numerous others also followed in his footsteps and fully gave themselves to the fight against slavery. He fought relentlessly for the abolition of slavery, which at the time was not supported by many. He got wealthy men to invest money and weapons in his fight against slavery. Brown had many failed business ventures, so if was not his savvy business experience that made these men give him money and supplies. I believe they in one way or another admired what Brown was doing and believed he could make a difference in the struggle against slavery. Even though at times, he took his actions to the extreme, he was driven by religious purpose. He truly felt he was the chosen one by God to end slavery. This being said, his actions could be seen as not merciless murders, but rather what had to be done to end slavery. Obviously killing proslavery supporters would do little to end slavery, but nevertheless abolitionist that supported John Brown followed him into battles and admired his leadership.
As others have posted, I am undecided about whether I would label John Brown a hero or a terrorist. As for a hero, John Brown risked his life and his family's to save people in need. This is an admirable trait that not many people possess. Brown followed his beliefs about what is right and did not stop even when times were rough, such as with the financial situation. This devotion could label him as a villain as well. His extreme missions to follow his religious beliefs became out of hand at some points, for example the Pottawatomie Massacre. As Madison said, John Brown had an honorable mission but his bravery was obscured by his obsessiveness. Although he was trying to help people, he was hurting others during this process. But, that is true with almost any honorable mission. This is why John Brown is such a controversial subject.
No one can deny that John Brown was devoted to the abolitionist cause. His devotion went so far as to encourage and approve the murder of American citizens. His devotion even usurped his religious faithfulness. However, as tenacious as John Brown was, I was surprised to read about his inconsistency. He practiced tolerance towards natives and slaves, but was not tolerant of whites whose beliefs differed from his. He ardently opposed the sins of others, but found that his sins were excusable. John Brown was supposedly a faithful Calvinist, who was averse to all sin. He viewed slavery as breaking a covenant with God and deemed it morally wrong. However, in his, “Declaration of Liberty,” he threatens to use violence to secure natural rights for all slaves. This acceptance of violence even resulted in the murder of Americans who supported slavery. John Brown’s struggle against slavery led me to wonder; When is murder excusable for the sake of one’s cause? Do you think murder was excusable in John Brown’s case?
John Brown had one goal; to abolish slavery. I agree with Cashel in saying that his devotion overruled his religious faithfulness and that he was inconsistent. He gradually let this idea of abolition take over his life and this drove him to become someone completely different then the John Brown at the beginning of the book. I use the murders of the proslavery supporters as an example. Brown murdered them because they believed in ideas that were different then his, which is inexcusable and ruthless.
Resolution can come from something other than violence and Brown believes that the only way to fully extinguish slavery is through violence and killing anyone that is associated with it. Brown claims that these murders were an act of preemptive self defense, but he had no proof to back up this thought. That said, Brown's intentions were partly clouded by this and other acts of violence, but I still believe that Brown had a noble cause when it came to the idea of abolishing slavery. Throughout Part 1 of Midnight Rising, I could not help but think, "Is Brown making any real progress in his mission to abolish slavery?"
As almost everyone else has previously said, John Brown’s eventual downfall was his willingness to defend what he believed in and his upbringing. His religious views began to control him when Brown seemingly convinced himself that he must preform God’s wish in ceasing the spread of slavery. I found this interesting to consider whether he used this religious obligation to justify his own actions, or whether this was the true force behind his actions.
When discussing the issue whether John Brown is a terrorist or hero, one must understand both points of view of the people that were affected by these horrific murders. Because of this, I believe that he cannot be labeled as either. He was a man who had extreme devotion to ending the spread of slavery, and this devotion became his fatal flaw. His intentions had been just, but his aggression and anger towards proslavery advocates caused him to become a murderer and was driven by the idea of punishing them for their horrific lifestyle. In doing so he had caused himself to be no better off, morally, than proslavery advocates, and had created a negative view regarding the abolitionist movement.
Agreeing primarily with Jennie, I struggle to categorize John Brown as either a hero or a terrorist. Throughout the beginning of Midnight Rising, Brown shows hero-like qualities, but is often blinded by his own adherence to the abolitionist movement. In Part 1, there is no argument about whether or not Brown is dedicated to the freeing of African American slaves- it consumes his entire life. Traveling back and forth, he rarely has time to communicate with his family, and besides the sending of letters, has minimal conversation unless he is trying to recruit one of the members. To Brown, it seems as if the abolition of slavery holds higher presidency over his family life. As previously mentioned in a few responses, one of Brown's catalytic forces is his upbringing in Calvinism. These religious views lead Brown to believe he is a soldier of God, and justifies any wrongdoings he may commit by believing it is all for the greater good of the people. The crimes against humanity (e.g. murder of innocents, slaughtering of slave owners), Brown commits throughout Part 1 of Midnight Rising could be used to label him as a terrorist: however; if it were not for his outstanding commitment to the abolition of slavery, and his belief these steps would benefit his movement, these actions would not have been taken. As Grace explained, Brown's judgement is clouded by his own beliefs in right or wrong. With this being said, he has created his own abstraction of reality in which his way is the right and proper way of doing things. Any threat to his institution is a threat to orderly existence. This concept may have contributed to the drastic measures Brown took in order to keep his movement going. Answering Cashel's question, I believe murder was not excusable in Brown's case. Although he had a just cause, murder was not the only option. Owen Brown, John's father, was also raised in a strict Calvinist upbringing, and was just as against sin. Owen believed the freeing of African American slaves could be achieved through defense, and was opposed to taking up arms in order to achieve one's goal.
Agreeing with those who are also undecided, I keep going back and forth on whether I would classify John Brown as a hero or a terrorist. John Brown was in the mindset that it was his sole responsibility to abolish slavery, as appointed by God, leading him to devote all aspects of his life to the mission. He put his vision of a morally righteous world, ridden of slavery, above himself, and risked everything to fulfill his goal. He had noble intentions, recruiting followers who admired him for his persistency in not giving up and his total devotion to the cause. Even when he needed helping himself, he consistently helped the abolishing slave movement first as a priority. He wanted nothing selfish out of his mission, all he strived for was to see the slaves freed. In that sense, I would consider John Brown a hero since he wanted to change the corrupt world for the better. On the other hand, John Brown’s dishonorable actions make it a controversial topic. Following his faith, he viewed slavery as a sin and in the process of abolishing it; he let his hatred of proslavery people override his primary goal, turning to violence and acting unjustly. He used the mechanism of terror to his advantage, striking fear into those who opposed him. John Brown saw his violent strategy of abolishing slavery as the only way to get the Southerners’ attention, since it was evident that through peaceful means slavery was not going to die out till far along in the future, so he saw his ruthless movement as the only way to immediately abolish slavery. With a clouded mind he turned to violence since he thought it the quickest way to see results. As explained by Lindsey, John Brown’s actions cannot be dismissed as him having no other choice, since he could have taken a less violent approach because killing the proslavery Southerners did not make the lives of the slaves notably better. Instead he could have followed his father’s method of talking sense into the Southerners, making them aware of their sins. John Brown does not fit perfectly into the definition of a hero or a terrorist, making it a highly debatable topic.
Although I view John Brown as one who possesses an unstable mind, I would not consider him insane quite yet. Brown has devoted himself to abolishing slavery, holding strong to the idea that the wrath of God will be unleashed on those who continue to support it. Though many favored the abolition of slavery, few were willing to make a stand. Many saw it as "an existing evil, for which we are not responsible", while Brown believed battling slavery was his God-given destiny. He was so devoted to the abolitionist movement that it seemed as though his own soul had been pierced by the iron of slavery. To me, his intense desire to protect the inalienable rights of all men veils his fragile mind.
I found it interesting how quickly John Brown changed regarding use of violence. In the beginning of his mission Brown models himself after William Lloyd Garrison, a Quaker who believed that non-violence and Christian uplift would help Americans conquer slavery. Furthermore, Brown was so disgusted with the fighting in the War of 1812 that he paid fines to avoid military service. This sounds nothing like the man in control of the brutal Pottawatomie Massacre years later. By killing supporters of slavery, Brown only increased tensions between the North and the South. Although he raised awareness for the abolition of slavery, I disagree with the way he went about doing it.
As many others have said, it is impossible to label John Brown as either a hero or terrorist. Brown's cause was an honorable one: he believed he was fighting for the freedom of his fellow human beings. His actions, however, were inexcusable for any cause. His extremism makes it easier to label Brown as a terrorist. There are other aspects of John Brown's mission which are reminiscent of a terrorist. To use our current war on terrorism as an example, Brown is strikingly similar to jihadists in that he justifies murder with the reasoning that he is fighting God's mission. As Lindsey said, Brown was "blinded" by his devotion to the anti-slavery cause as well as his devotion to God.
As Griffin mentioned, I was confused by Brown's sudden jump from pacifist abolitionist to homicidal warrior. John Brown originally believed in the peaceful teachings of William Lloyd Garrison, even distributing "The Liberator". Just a few short years later, this same man played a hand in the bloody Pottowatomie Massacre, mercilessly slaughtering five men simply to make a statement and gain awareness for his cause. However honorable a cause, these actions are inexcusable. Surely Brown could have found a more peaceful way to get his point across. To respond to Grace's question on if Brown was making any progress in his abolition of slavery, I would say that yes, he was. The Pottowatomie Massacre was national news and gained Brown, as well as the abolitionist cause, massive attention. It also increased tensions between the North and the South. While I do believe the Pottowatomie Massacre as well as other battles Brown fought in the name of slavery helped him make progress for his cause, I believe he could have made this same progress without killing others. Brown's actions were successful, but not excusable.
To start off, I am honestly surprised at how many people on here are ( or were, I suppose, considering the next few chapters may have made some of you more decisive) undecided on the big question of if John Brown is a terrorist or a hero. Although some of you have made some good points to the contrary, I can not see Brown as anything BUT a terrorist. Personally, no matter how good the intentions or cause, murder in the name of an ideal, whether political or religious, is a senseless, terrible thing, no less pointless than murder for money, drugs, or other property. Like Cashel wrote, we must decide where to draw the line between breakable and unbreakable, between worth it and forgivable, or meaningless and unconscionable. Well my line is here: anyone who commits murder in the name of anything but immediate self-defense of his/herself or his/her loved ones, deserves no praise or clemency ( and revenge is not self-defense either ). I see Brown as no different than any al Qaeda member ( as Hillman mentioned ), especially because when it comes down to it, Brown is driven less by sympathy for slaves and their rights, and more by his fanatical religious need to wipe out sin. Brown also reminds me of Manson, because the cult like movement Brown forms with his sons, or the fictional Tobias Henkel from "Criminal Minds", because of the similarities the two share in the early loss of their mothers, the abuse they receive from their fathers, and their harsh, highly influential, religious upbringings. Therefore, when it is so easy to profile John Brown as a serial killer, can you blame me for ignoring some of his more redeeming qualities. Just because I can understand and even feel sorry for some murders, I don't always see killing someone else as the finale answer. Especially if someone is trying to promote a controversial cause; murdering the opposition will not draw in more supporters. ( NOTE: It should be taken into account however, that I am biased in my opinion of Brown because I have a strong dislike of religious zealots, doesn't matter which religion. Religion is supposed to be about hope and community, not punishment and shoving one's invisible deities down another person's throat. I, perhaps unjustly, have a strong contempt of anyone like Brown, the fighters in the Crusades, or modern day Islamic extremists. For pious holy men, these people seemed to have no qualms about killing if they think it is their god's will, or that he will forgive them. ) - Amanda Zarni
That's true, but there's another factor that we need to take into consideration, that being the time period. Morality is subjective; not just because of different religious moral codes, but also because of social conditions. After all, one of the hallmarks of the system Brown was trying to destroy was the abuse and murder of beings with no civil rights. The 1800s were also times in which corporal punishment and wife beating were widely considered acceptable, the establishment of degrees of murder had barely begun to reduce the use of the death penalty, and humane treatment of criminals and the insane had yet to leave Europe. John Brown has to be viewed, at least in part, as a product of the times he lived in. Had he murdered BLACK, rather than white, civilians, his crime would have been one of property damage. I don't approve of his attempt at a religious crusade, but I think that judging it by today's standards is a mistake.
I agree with you about the fact violence was more commonplace at the time, but even then, it was used as a punishment (which is different) or was not really talked about because habits like wife beating were not truly condoned. I suppose if we are taking this into account however, then we must look at the question asked of us in two parts: is John Brown a hero, terrorist, or both, in today's society? What would he have been considered in his day? I would say terrorist for both, because no matter what he went against his own country and fellow Americans using violence and terror, in an attempt to change the ideals of others to match his own. Despite having different degrees of murder and such today, the definition of a terrorist is consistent, and Brown fits this definition.
Rather than a hero or a terrorist, in my opinion John Brown is a martyr. He was willing to go to whatever length to abolish slavery completely. Brown has qualities of a hero, his determination and will to sacrifice, but also the traits of a terrorist, his extremist religious thoughts and the extreme measures he takes to achieve his goal. Like Cassidy said, its hard to label him either because the cause he was fighting was an honorable one. In my eyes I see Brown as a martyr because of the suffering and obstacles he has to overcome to push forward with his goal of stopping slavery. Although I do not agree with some of Brown's actions in the movement of abolition, he had the right intentions but was too consumed in abolishing slavery to see what was morally correct. For example, murdering the men that were proslavery from Kansas could be seen as an act of terrorism but Brown's actions were too clouded by his drive to abolition to see what he was doing was morally wrong.
Up to this point in the book, I believe it is difficult to label Brown as a hero or terrorist. However, although his intentions are for the better, Brown's actions reflect that of a terrorist. He goes against the government and kills several settlers of the Pottawatomie. The bodies were found ripped apart, not killed in the most efficient way. Understanding Brown's reasoning allows a reader to have the opinion of a hero but I can see a terrorist (up to part 2 that is, he may change). The main argument against my point would be that Brown's judgement was clouded and much different compared to those of today to which I struggle to figure out if that played a role in his slaughter. As to being admired or condemned, I believe Brown should certainly be admired, but his violence should be a warning to the human race.
I believe that John Brown is a combination of a madman and a terrorist. Brown faced a troubled childhood, and a tyrannical father who believed in strict adherence to Calvinism. This strict adherence to Calvinism is what gave Brown this "mission". Though his "mission" for abolition is a heroic thought, his execution of it is both illegal, and immoral. I agree with Amanda's statement above; when murder is committed and it is not in immediate self-defense, no matter how holy of an act it may seem it is still wrong.
The most memorable part about this section was watching the troubled child grow into an even more self righteous adult inspired by the Old Testament character and his own personal idol Gideon. Gideon is one of the driving aspects behind why Brown is fighting for abolition; Brown wants most of all to be just like Gideon. Correlating with Gideon, Brown was in charge of a small army called the "Northern army". And he may or may not have physically participated (based on several different affidavits) in the slaughter of those proslavery party members. But bottom line he orchestrated the attack. No matter what one's opinion is, Brown shouldn't have taken what he considered was law into his hands and murdered people based on that. Therefore he is a terrorist for attacking his fellow countrymen, and a madman for crusading and killing in the name of his God.
Without a doubt, John Brown is a terrorist. The fact that one would even consider deeming his acts heroic proves the perversity of the country we live in. Not to point fingers, but individuals like Brown are the reason America still solves its issues through the barrel of a gun, or with the pin of a hand grenade. This question, however, is assessed through a very biased eye. Of course, as Americans we feel an extremely strong sense of patriotism, which can often outweigh our own assessments of the conflicts themselves. However, if one were to ask an Al-Qaeda member if he thought the actions of Hussein or Bin Laden were heroic, he or she would likely have no doubt in their mind that they were commendable. This kind of alternate perspective puts an American reader at a disadvantage in terms of making accurate judgements. However, terror is terror. Regardless of the cause and regardless of the severity of suffrage, the answer simply cannot be murder. Referring to Jennies post, she claims that Brown did not strive to terrorize innocent people. Yet once the term ''innocent'' comes into play, a whole new issue arises. Who is John Brown to judge innocence in the first place? Are we, as people, allowed to classify individuals as innocent or guilty, and then act upon these classifications? For someone with such a strong belief in the Calvinist faith, it surprises me that Brown would even conflict himself with these matters. I can't understand how one can believe so strongly in predestination, yet feel that he has the power to determine the fate of others. I would assume that someone so religious would entrust God with the right to condemn those worthy of eternal damnation. It's a shame Orwell hadn't been present before Brown's time, because after reading about the Pottawatamie Massacre, and understanding browns incentive to attack, it all began to seem very idiotic to me. If John Brown wanted to gain "Big Brother" like power, so to speak, he was not approaching the conflict in the right way. In order to defeat your enemies, you must conform them, not kill them. As practiced by Big Brother's Party itself in 1984, they knew that killing the enemy would only incite rioters with greater impetus to follow in the idealogical footsteps of the defeated. However, if you conform the opponent to believe in your cause, they are now completely receptive and practically incapable of any form of revolt. It will be great to see if terror trumps reason later in the novel...
As all would now agree, the abolition of slavery was a huge step forward in American history-but not one that we pioneered. America was one of the later Western countries to abolish slavery, and Brown knew this when he killed five in the Pottawatomie Massacre. Though his intents were from our point of view honorable, it is, as others have mentioned, hard to put oneself past his bloody way of solving the problem. One is left thinking if maybe a desire for power, religious devotion, or revenge were corrupting his pure intentions and leading to violence. However, Brown also knew that if the Southern economy were booming on the back of slave labor, the U.S. would not abolish slavery, and he would have to bring attention to the issue in some way, and he chose violence. It is also important to note that Brown lived in a time where violence was rampant on the unregulated Western edge of American expansion, and he claimed to only be acting in “self defense”. It is hard to argue with his methods when considering that his actions presumably (as one can only assume having read up until this point in the book) led to the eventual abolition of slavery. Many tend use the term terrorist to describe those whose determination for their cause necessitated a loss of life if that person’s efforts did not benefit their own life. Religious toleration and many other freedoms we enjoy today would not have been made possible without bloodshed. If we benefit from the bloodshed, we commemorate it. Americans even celebrate the day when we killed enough British soldiers to become an independent nation; the Fourth of July. In both situations, Brown’s, and that of the early settlers in America, both were advocating for acts of change which clashed with the laws and ideas of the government, which at the time was considered terrorism, but in today’s view would be considered heroism. With that having been said, though a bit of both terrorist and hero, I would consider John Brown more of a hero.
John Brown initially supported the Quaker ideas of William Lloyd Garrison. With time however, Brown drifted away from these ideals and began to realize that to accomplish what he needed he must use more extreme methods. He believed God gave him the mission to abolish slavery and therefore had a cause for the traumatic events he plotted. I definitely aggree that Brown was a terrorist, however, I also think that his intentions got away from him and he gradually became absorbed in the notion of violence and perhaps switched back and forth between exhibiting behaviors of a terrorist and a murderor. At The Pottawatomie Massacre John Brown knew what he had to do and why. He did it for a reason and illuminated a cause. On the other hand, I think his intensity got away from him and he continued to create violent uprisings without accomplishing much more than he did during the first massacre.
On another note, it cannot go unsaid that John Brown was a hero as well. Many people were strong abolitionists like Brown, however he was one of few that were successful in making progress toward abolishing slavery, even if it meant risking his life or failure. Unfortunately, I think Brown thought that the only way to do this was through violence. I agree with Cassidy in that I think there could have been less violent ways to create awareness. However, he felt strongly for a cause, took action, and helped to promise freedom to every American.
Being that it is early in the tale of John Brown and his escapade, I find it difficult to label "Pottawatomie Brown" as a hero, terrorist, or maniac. Brown has not yet put his actions out of reach of being described as any of the three. I also think that the time period in which Brown lives needs to be taken into account. His murderous acts against the Pottawatomie settlers, as gruesome as may be, would not have been nearly as severe nor uncommon as it would be today. The Hatfield and McCoy family's who battled during the same time period, experienced many gruesome deaths, eerily similar to those of the settlers. There were many more killings like this in the U.S. and cannot be looked at as if it happened in today's environment.
Staying on the time period topic, I found it interesting how loyal and devoted John Brown's family is to his cause. The abolitionist motive was not necessarily theirs, but they went to extremes, even death, to support him. In a different era, Brown's kin may have challenged him making his journey much more difficult.
I believe that there are two ways to look at John Brown, objectively and subjectively. Objectively, John Brown is a terrorist due to the fact that he uses violence to spread mass fear over a populace in order to achieve his political and religious goals. A perfect example of this was the Pottawatomie massacre in which Brown and his cohorts killed and mutilated five civilians who happened to be pro-slavery to spread fear in an already unstable "bleeding" Kansas. To further examine how John Brown is a terrorist, I will take Hillman up on his offer to compare him to an Al-Qaeda member. Both parties justify their actions through the belief that a higher power has given them a holy mission to rid the world of an unforgivable evil. Brown's "Gideon-like quest" has as much fervor as the jihad of an Islamic fundamentalist, the difference being one sees this evil as slavery while the other one sees it as the West and Western Ideals. With this holy quest in mind, John Brown has demonstrated and will no doubt demonstrate again to what lengths he would go to in order to carry out his mission, having already orchestrated a series of murders and kidnappings and in his mind all of that is justified in the name of God. I fail to see how his actions are different than that of Al-Qaeda who employ the same tactics of murder and kidnapping in Allah's name and also expect a reward from it. From what I have read so far, Brown would happily take martyrdom over surrender knowing that he would become a hero to all abolitionists of his time. This is the exact same thought that a suicide bomber has, to be remembered as a hero for carrying out his holy duty in the name of Islam.
Where the line between terrorist and hero becomes blurry is when one looks at Brown subjectively, taking into account what he was fighting against. I have no doubt many saw Brown as the "good guy" since we view slavery as a terrible act today and the story is just as simple as good vs. evil. Spencer and Laura said that Brown should even be praised for his actions and the sacrifices and hardships he endured only serve to highlight his courage and determination. I doubt either of them would praise a suicide bomber for the sacrifices he has made or call him courageous. This is where the controversy comes in. Both Brown and Al-Qaeda use the same doctrine of terror and violence to achieve their goals except modern American views says that one is justifiable while the other is not. A black and white comparison here would be that Brown fights against slavery, therefore Brown is good. Al-Qaeda fights against America and The West, therefore Al-Qaeda is bad. Both perfectly fall under the definition of a terrorist, but our American views cause us to look at each through with a different lens. In conclusion, I believe that Brown is a terrorist, but some might be reluctant to say so because of his progressive views in an era of inequality.
The violent nature of John Brown, a man with deep ties to Christianity and the abolitionist movement seems out of place. Brown’s use of violence and murder to eliminate slavery is ironic in that he violates his belief system to end something, which is against his belief system. The amount of wealthy individuals that would support Brown with his endeavors after years of failure and general lack of results is staggering. His raids seem to be just as fruitful as Nat Turner’s, with the end result of more Blacks being killed and more anti-abolitionist sentiment across the south. Brown’s excessive use of violence, which leads to the loss of civilian lives, in turn, loses him the support of many more moderate abolitionists. Also, the loss of many of Brown’s family in his many conflicts seems to have no effect on him, it seems the destruction of slavery is more important than the destruction of his family. To say whether John Brown is a hero or a terrorist is truly a matter of interpretation. An abolitionist of the time would most likely consider the brutality of Brown justified by his overarching goal of ending slavery. On the contrary, a citizen of Pottawatomie who has seen Brown’s brutality first hand would probably classify him as a terrorist.
Inarguably, John Brown was devoted to the abolition movement, having spent most of his life and a large amount of money donated by others. However, before all this time and money he allocated, it seems he should have thought more closely about why his rebellion will work whereas Turner’s failed. For years, he seeks funding for his cause with little action, yet he continues to receive more and more from many different wealthy abolitionists. It is astounding that people would invest in someone with continued financial failures as well as nothing to show for his effort. Moreover, with support Brown still ended up with an untrained and small militia. When looking back at Brown, his age really goes against the traditional thought of younger generations igniting revolution. At such an old age and so deeply religious, it is surprising that he would lead such violent attacks as the ones he made in Tennessee. On a different note, it is a minor detail but the thought that he believed it was a good idea to arm slaves with pikes to fight soldiers armed with guns seems completely irrational. As for whether John Brown is a terrorist or a freedom fighting, the saying, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.” Although cliché definitely applies in situations like this, good and bad are all a matter of perspective.
John Brown was a hero to many abolitionists for he took matters into his own hands, and he fought for what he believed was right. The issue of slavery stirred many conflicts before Brown began his crusade. The current line of Presidents during this time were weak, and they catered to slaveholders. This demonstrates the power of the proslavery force. Brown, originally a pacifist, realized that nonviolence would be insufficient to stop the oppressive slave holders. Inspired by the Biblical story of Gideon, Brown took up arms and gained supporters to help to free the oppressed slaves. One may say Brown was a terrorist, and his actions struck terror into many due to cruel killings. However, the gruesome actions at the Pottawatomie massacre sent a necessary message that the abolitionists would fight back. Brown’s violent methods also helped free slaves at the Missouri Rescue. Violence during this time was not unheard of as slaveholders whipped and brutalized those whom they believed were their personal property. Proslavery men also took up arms when they pillaged Lawrence, Kansas. Are these not acts of terrorism? Brown was just a part of an escalating conflict that would result in the Civil War. Brown was a hero as well as a terrorist.
It is apparent in the first six chapters of Midnight Rising that John Brown has methodical and logical reasoning behind his attempts to spark his crusade, which would certainly rule out any claims of him being insane. I would, however, categorize Brown as a terrorist rather than a hero. Brown's actions up to chapter six all suggest that his main intent was to spark fear in southern slave plantations, causing such disorder that the slaves would rise up against their oppressors. As noble of a plan this may seem, Brown's intent of terrorizing southern slave owners is undeniably the act of a terrorist. Christopher D. brings up an interesting topic when discussing the true role of John Brown in the civil war with, ""One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.”" John Brown does straddle in ever so slight line between freedom fighter (revolutionary) and terrorist. To distinguish between the two is often a matter of opinion guided by the overall actions and outcomes and their effects on society. As we are only allowed to discuss the events up to chapter six in this blog, I believe it would be unfair to coin Brown as a revolutionary, as we as readers are not yet aware of the overall outcome of his actions. For the time being, I believe John Brown's actions and intent are enough to classify him as a terrorist.
A terrorist is defined as someone who uses violence for political gain. The Pottawatomie Massacre proves that john Brown was willing to use violence to bring the issue of slavery into the public’s view. While Brown claimed he was acting out of self-defense, attacking southern sympathizers who threatened and intended to harm the free states, the men he murdered were innocent. Instead of trying to develop a peaceful strategy, perhaps with hostages, Brown murdered five men in cold blood. They were proslavery, yet they were entitled to their opinions just as John Brown was entitled to his. They had been living peacefully, not actively fighting abolitionists, nor did they own any slaves. The killings were later justified by Brown’s son, John Junior, who claimed that the “killing should so terrorize the proslavery camp as to deter future violence” (54). Using violence to prevent violence is a faulty mantra that did not work for Brown, and this twisted defense of the Pottawatomie Massacre is why I view Brown as a terrorist. That being said, I agree with Cassidy in that the Massacre helped to bring the issue of slavery into the light, even if it was in the worst way possible. While the killings did help to make progress for the cause, they brought more fear and anger than they did support. What I am confused about is why Brown, who is portrayed as a deeply religious man who adamantly tried to obliterate sin in himself and others, would commit one of the ultimate sins: murder. Did he truly believe that all southern sympathizers were a threat to his campaign and the free states, and therefore killing them would be an act of self-defense? Or did he simply choose to think himself above sin because he viewed himself as an agent of God and therefore acting on his wishes?
Agreeing with what Ben and many others mentioned above, I do not think that John Brown can be classified as insane or crazy. His extreme devotion and dedication to his cause may sometimes come off as insanity, but in the end he is trying to do an honorable thing by abolishing slavery. He completely devotes his entire life to this cause and makes many sacrifices in order to make this possible. The many months he goes without seeing his family as well as the horrid conditions he often lived in are just some examples of the many sacrifices he made. At one point in the story he mentioned that he was absent for one of his children's entire toddler years. Many have raised the question about whether or not he should be considered a hero or a terrorist. Similar to most things today, there is always two sides to a story. By the slaves whom he was freeing he would most likely be considered a hero, but by the proslavery men whom he was slaughtering he would likely be considered a terrorist. Some may choose to call him a terrorist due to the severe lengths to which he took his violence. He realized that violence must be used but I believe that things definitely got out of hand. At this point it was too late to stop the violence that would follow. At this point in the story it is too early to have a definitive answer to the question of whether or not he is a terrorist, but I think his actions in part two might help us gain a clearer answer.
Another question raised that I found very interesting was when Grace asked whether or not Brown made any progress on his mission in part one. I think it is safe to say that he did. Although it may seem as if he did not get much accomplished, someone needed to get the ball rolling in order for anything to get done in the future. In part two I think we will see that his actions in part one did indicate progress towards the abolishment of slavery.
After reading some of the responses from earlier in the summer, I'd like to add that John Brown was acting out of his religious extremism, not because he thought what he was doing was "right." Sure, it was "right" and his interpretation of the Bible said it was "right" but the point is, he was not thinking for himself, at least not completely. In many of his letters back and forth between him and his family, Brown referenced that God had determined his destiny as an abolitionist of slavery. Granted, this eventually turned into something that he strongly believed in, but only because God made it his duty. This kind of religious extremism happens all the time and all over the world, and generally results in terrorism. John Brown can be considered a full-blown terrorist, but only by looking at one condition. The Pottawatomie Massacre showed off Brown and co.'s ruthlessness when it came to fulfilling their goal, and was the first time we saw Brown as a killer, not just a wanderer searching for money. This instance makes the impression that Brown was indeed a terrorist, nothing but a homicidal maniac with a small following running around Kansas murdering people.
However, it is not fair to base all reasoning on that one case. Based on his devout obedience to his religion, Brown could also be considered a martyr, as he went to extreme measures to do the deed he was "given". Depending on how somebody views Brown can give two exactly opposite ideas. Sure, he committed terrible crimes, but it is going too far to only consider him as a terrorist or a martyr/hero. That being said, it is hard to put any sort of label on John Brown, because he was not acting out of self-interest, but by what he thought was the will of God.
John Brown was a man who believed that what he was doing was right. His intense Calvinist roots influenced his view about his role as he believed that he was already pre-destined to carry out a campaign against slavery. In Kansas, he became caught up in the frenzy of Bleeding Kansas, and took extreme action to fulfill his goal. A question that came to my mind was how far was he prepared to go to abolish slavery? He obviously did not take into account the immense logistical challenges required for such an endeavor, though he did recruit the "Secret Six" and Frederick Douglas, and took tours through the USA and Canada in hopes of enlistment. However, on other fronts, he was prepared. He had detailed maps, wrote his version of the Declaration of Independence for slaves, and had the munitions necessary to initially sustain his army. I believe that John Brown's biggest impediment was his inability to finish what he started. Throughout his life, he had outstanding debt, and also would move on to the next stage of a plan before completing the necessary prior steps. Realistically, John Brown's crew got lucky that the armory was so lightly guarded. He expected to overrun a federal property, in the heart of a Southern slave state, with just 20 other men. In the end, all that was needed to subdue his threat was a small detachment of Marines under Col. Lee. John Brown had the heart and drive to fulfill his mission, yet he lacked the practicality and logistics necessary to undertake such a fanatic hope.I do not believe that John was crazy, for his actions set into motion a chain of events eventually leading to Fort Sumter. This means that the North eventually realized what this raid did; it finally set slavery against freedom and forced people to pick sides. This was John's goal, and he fulfilled it.
I think we can label John Brown as a terrorist. He tries to argue that he is doing the Christian thing and carrying out gods work, and yet he has no qualms about killing innocent, non slave owning settlers in Kansas to further his goals. This type of extremism leads him to neglect and abandon his wife and kids for long periods of time, letting them suffer in an unfinished house through the winter. Brown is so dedicated to abolishing slavery that he often seems inadequately prepared for the challenge of leading his band of men and planning the attack. The only thing that keeps him going is sheer commitment and his strong network of supporters. Brown's trouble managing money and his business troubles further show that he is not a great leader. This may be attributed to mild mental illness or insanity, which we see many hints of in the first section of the book. This illness would also contribute to his fanatical determination to destroy slavery forever at all cost, including killing and deserting his family and those that depend on him.
Throughout chapters 1-6 there are many instances where John Brown acts as both a terrorist and a hero. The first few chapters paint the picture of Browns early life, an extremely religious man who has pride in his beliefs about slavery. While some might see these beliefs taken to the extreme later in the book, up until this point there is nothing that can clearly label him as a terrorist. On the flip side of that there are a few examples of terrorist acts that were not meant to be viewed as terrorism. The Pottawatomie Massacre is a clear example as an act of terrorism that Brown not only acts as a part of but also leads. Brown doesn't set out on his escapade looking for people to intentionally harm but rather to reinforce his views on his lifelong journey of ending slavery. Agreeing with Patrick the killings of these settlers is gruesome and unnecessary. The killing of a few settlers doesn't warrant the terrorist label to be placed on him. While the killings of innocent people can be viewed as terrorism, Brown uses these gruesome killings in a cunning way, bringing his slavery battle to the home front. Brown blends his killings into a way that supports his cause, which pays off by sparking more abolitionist debates in the North. Browns actions in chapters 1-6 do not provide an accurate way to assess him as either a terrorist or a hero.
Based on the reading thus far, I do not believe that John Brown cannot be classified as a hero or a terrorist. A hero can be defined as a person who is regarded as a model or ideal. While Brown does have a strong sense of right and wrong, it is clear that he certainly is not a model citizen. It is true that Brown displays acts of heroism in striving for abolition, however he rarely accomplishes his goals without resorting to violence. I imagine the eleven black slaves that were rescued by Brown in Missouri and led over a thousand miles to freedom would without doubt view him as hero, but heroic acts like this do not change that fact that John Brown is far from being an ideal person.
Similarly, Brown cannot be considered a terrorist because he is driven by the holy and patriotic cause of abolition. Although the methods he uses to fight slavery are at times questionable to say the least, Brown commits the crimes he does with the goal of righting a wrong. I am sure that the families of the victims killed by Brown in the Pottawatomie Massacre would consider him to be a terrorist, but Brown simply met violence in Kansas with violence as he saw necessary. That doesn't mean that this was the right thing to do, but John Brown killed for a purpose, not out of anger or hatred, and that does not make him a terrorist.
I would say that John Brown is a hero. It is clear that Brown is strongly religious and uses his faith to justify his actions, but that does not make him insane. He could easily go too far and become insane, but we just don’t see that yet. Will he take it too far? He has had so many setbacks and has suffered so much, and that would make anyone go at least a little crazy. However, as of right now, Brown is not insane and he is not a terrorist. Yes, he killed people during the Pottawatomie Massacre, but he hasn’t done anything to make him comparable to a terrorist. I’m not saying he should have killed those people or that it wasn’t a bad thing, it was, I’m just saying that he hasn’t gone to the very extreme yet. For now, Brown is a hero. He is working towards a cause that he hopes will benefit people. He has given up his entire life, including his source of income and family life, to pursue a goal that he feels God has called upon him to do. Like it said in the prologue, people were strongly against slavery but no one was doing anything to stop it. John Brown was the one person who decided to do something.
Based on the reading so far, John Brown is a powerful abolitionist who will do whatever it takes to accomplish his main goal of setting all slaves free. John Brown is an extremely religious figure, and uses his religion to support what he is doing. Despite the fact that John Brown is trying to free all slaves, he is still a controversial figure. The methods by which Brown attempts to attain his goal are sometimes inhumane and cruel. The most noteworthy example of John Brown's controversial methods, is the Pottawatomie massacre in which Brown and his men slaughtered five proslavery men in the middle of the night. This also brings up the question whether or not John Brown is a hero. To me, Brown should be cosiderd a hero. Brown is a hero because of his overall determination to do what is right. He choses to look at the bigger picture and does what it takes in the short term to make a more free U.S. in the future. In order for the U.S. to finnaly stop slavery somebody would have had to get the ball rolling and do the dirty work that needed to be done in order for the rest of the country to make a stand as well. This unfortunately was John Brown's job and he did what needed to be done.
John Brown's devotion to the abolitionist cause originally stemmed from his upbringing in early America. It was there, with his father, that he developed a need to free his “fellow-men who are in bondage.” (24) His loyalty to the cause was apparent, and it was this loyalty that made Brown the interesting person that he was. I believe that it was a mix of that upbringing (which included him bonding with Native Americans along with slaves) and his religion that made him become the person he was. The religion, I think, played a bigger part in his approach to freeing the slaves. Brown had compared himself to Gideon from the Bible and believed that with a small band of followers, which he had gathered, he could destroy slavery. I agree with Griffin in finding Brown’s progression from pacifist-Quaker abolitionist to extremely radical abolitionist interesting. In his early writings, Brown had the idea of educating slaves to free their minds thus encouraging their owners to emancipate them and he even said in a letter to his brother, Frederick, in 1834 that “perhaps we might, under God, in that way do more towards breaking their yoke effectually than in any other.” (24) He originally had a pacifistic approach to his cause and had no use for violence in his plan. However after years of idle work in North Elba not promoting his plan but instead educating already freed slaves in such trades as farming, surveying and livestock raising, Brown found a new calling Kansas. It was there, fighting pro-slavery insurgents that Brown found his God-given destiny and gathered his own small band of followers to attack pro-slavery areas (like Pottawatomie) and become the Gideon-like figure of the pre-Civil War era.
What I couldn't understand though was why Brown gave up on the idea of educating the slaves and instead resorted to acts of violence. By using violence as a means to free the slaves, Brown made himself appear as a radical, instead of painting plantation owners in that light. I can understand that violence is a much faster, and presumably more efficient, way of achieving the goal you are striving towards (be it peace or emancipating the slaves) but Brown had already seen the results of violence being used in the South. Three years prior to his letter to Frederick, Nat Turner had been executed for his work inciting the slave rebellion which was entirely focused on murdering plantation owners and their innocent families. So Brown knew that violence would not help him accomplish his goal, yet he proceeded anyway. Why did he not make more of an effort in his plan to educate the slaves? It could be that had become a fanatic to the story of Gideon and saw it as a proven method to freeing a people, so he decided that that was his best course of action. He was a fanatic and a man on a mission, but I doubt he was crazy. After reading Part I, he seemed to me to be very in touch with what he was doing and like knew the majority of his plan (although he rarely commented on it). Brown was a man on a mission and whether he was a hero to some and a terrorist to others did not matter because he had his sights set on freeing the slaves of the South, and he planned to do it at any cost and with whatever means necessary.
After reading through this first section of Midnight Rising and looking through some of the above comments, I can say that it is too early to tell exactly who John Brown is. I feel a lot of sympathy for Brown and his early life. He had many losses, including the deaths of many of his children at a young age and his mother's death during childbirth. His fight against slavery was the one thing that kept him going. He even expressed at one point of “having a steady, strong desire: to die...certainly the cause is enough to live for." (28) This cause, of course, was abolitionism.
Brown was raised by a passionate and avidly Calvinist family and these fervent beliefs were naturally transferred over to him. The many crimes Brown commits, from the Missouri raid to the gruesome Pottawatomie massacre, he justifies by stating he wields the sword of God, or he is acting under God's wishes. Though I do not believe Brown is insane, I do believe he is a fanatic and his religion drove his devotion to this cause. One key detail remains, however: Brown's father was a pacifist and Calvinists denounce all forms of violence. Brown however, as it was particularly noted by author, would adhere to violent behavior if the time and situation called for it. This small detail is what leads me to believe that John Brown is attempting to do heroic deeds, and is regarding every course of action to further his cause as a justification for violence. John Brown seems to be a hero who is fighting like a terrorist, but I think only the raid on Harper's Ferry and the aftermath of it will help to narrow down who exactly this man is.
I have not decided whether I believe John Brown to be a hero or a terrorist. It is clear that John Brown is intensely devoted to the abolitionist cause. Due to his intense devotion, his actions can be argued as heroic. This is because he has not only put all of his energy into fighting for this cause, but he has also risked his own life and his family’s to help enslaved people in need. John Brown also had heroic intentions when it came to inviting others to join him in his fight for the freedom of slaves. Like Cassidy mentioned earlier, Brown’s ultimate goal was honorable because he was fighting for the freedom of other humans. Therefore, I find it difficult to deny him of a heroic title. On the other hand, many of his actions I feel are too closely related and fall under the category of terrorism. I agree with Hana’s point that discusses how he viewed slavery as a sin, (because of his faith) which let his hatred of proslavery people override his primary and original goal: to abolish slavery. Therefore, John Brown turned to violence against those people. These violent actions of John Brown could categorize him as a terrorist. A potential example of an act of terrorism is the vicious Pottawatomie Massacre. This is because by brutally murdering people who supported slavery, he used terror to inflict awareness of the abolition of slavery. As many others have stated, it is difficult to label John Brown as either a hero or a terrorist.
As many have posted, I think it is too early to classify John Brown a hero or a terrorist after reading part one. Brown only has the best intentions in mind as he plans to abolish slavery and repeatedly reminds his men to avoid bloodshed. On the other hand, his planned attack on Harper's Ferry can surely not be completed without any bloodshed and Brown must have known this, even if he did not support it. Although there are reasons to label John Brown a terrorist, I view him as more of a hero. Brown was determined to abolish slavery and felt that it was his God given duty to do so. He put the mission before himself and his family which show his selfless traits that are present in many heroes. Something previously mentioned was that his eventual downfall was his extreme religious beliefs. In my opinion, there is a good side and a bad side to Brown's everlasting dedication to his religion. On one hand, thanks to his strong determination, Brown will not let anything get in the way of him and his plan. On the contrary, Brown's devotion may become aggressive and cause him to lose sight of his true goal by taking it out on the proslavery people rather than focusing on freeing the slaves. Even though Brown's attack included multiple murders, he is devoted to his cause and will stop at nothing until he fulfills his duty.
Even though his actions may suggest otherwise, I believe John Brown is a hero, rather than a terrorist. Brown does not think of himself as “a soldier of God”, as some have pointed out, but rather, a soldier of his own abolitionist beliefs. No matter what his upbringing was like, I believe religion was just an excuse to further justify his actions and make his own beliefs appeal to the slightly more religious people of the 1800s. His unwavering belief in his cause is but one heroic quality. Most of my peers seem to be leaning more towards “terrorist” rather than “hero”, which is understandable, because some of Brown’s actions are a bit questionable, particularly the murders. However, in any war, this one being the war against slavery, losses and sacrifices are inevitable. If all who have committed murder are classified as terrorists rather than heroes, then I’m fairly certain there would be few “heroes” left, not to mention that John Brown had his reasons for the killings. John Brown’s perseverance, ruthlessness (or one might say selflessness), and perhaps even the touch of insanity, are common traits of a terrorist. But in the case of this person and this cause, these are traits of a hero.
John Brown was clearly devoted to abolishing slavery. His devotion to the cause stemmed from his faith in god, and his belief that all men are equal. He believed god had given him a sole purpose in life, to end slavery, therefore he did everything he could to fulfill this destiny. John Brown was selfless in that he was willing to risk his own life to help free the slaves. He worked hard to spread his ideas and intentions, in order to gain followers and help the movement. Although his intentions were good, Brown’s rationality was clouded by his desire to succeed. John Brown became ruthless in his quest to abolish slavery. He sought to overcome the proslavery southerners by terrorizing them. He viewed violence and brutality as the quickest most efficient way to succeed, and therefore had no interest in trying to solve the problem peacefully. To draw attention to the cause Brown lead the Pottawatomie Massacre slaughtering five men because they were proslavery. John Brown struggled with financial decisions, jeopardizing both his and his family’s well being. Brown’s unjust actions and poor decisions threatened the lives of all those related to him. He viewed slavery as sin, and therefore despised it. Brown’ s own actions to conquer slavery were sins themselves. However, as Cashel said, he deemed these sins as “ excusable” because he was so biased in his views.
The opening chapters of Horwitz’ Midnight Rising make a strong case to the reader that John Brown is, in fact, insane. By modern standards Brown’s actions clearly indicate him to be a terrorist, his religious fanaticism, radical views, and conviction a trio of vindicating traits. However, one must keep in mind, Brown’s doings do not occur in modern society, but rather during the time of the greatest hostility our nation has ever seen. As Horwitz mentions, it was not uncommon for proslavery posses to commit deeds equally horrific, nor were the efforts of peaceful antislavery campaigns taking affect. In this situation, the vehement Brown sought the only option left for him to take: fighting fire with fire and retaliating with force. Is it true two wrongs don’t make a right? Possibly, but as a “man of action”, Brown realized it was time to fight back (76). In my opinion, Brown’s courage to stand up for what he knew to be right was not an act of terror, instead he was battling the source of true terror in the United States: slavery. Brown was not a terrorist, yet evidence from the early chapters seems to point to insanity. Considering Brown objectively however, particularly refraining from allowing modern views to cloud judgment, shows otherwise. If considering Brown to be insane, shouldn’t his proslavery Southern counterparts receive the same label? Suddenly a large portion of nineteenth century America becomes “insane”. Late in the first section Brown even defies claims of insanity as he meticulously prepares, devising a devious plan for a second strike. I cannot give Brown a moral pass for the atrocities he committed in his merciless slayings, but I defend his actions against the titles of terrorism or insanity seeing as he fought against acts of similar nature. Thus far, John Brown is simply a man of great courage and little hesitancy.
Throughout the first part of the book, John Brown seems to be both a terrorist and a hero, but he does not seem insane. He is vehemently committed to his cause and to God, but this does not point to insanity. His actions are similar to those of others of the time period, and while his goal in attacking Harper's Ferry is highly unrealistic, his actions are, at least, well thought out. In terms of terrorism, the brutal murders he committed in Kansas were certainly acts of terrorism. Also, the planned raid on Harper's Ferry can also be viewed as a terrorist act. However, this does not mean that he is not a hero. While the murders he committed are hugely reprehensible, his aim was to aim slavery. Also, his raid into Mississippi, resulting in the freeing of several slaves was the act of a hero. His goal in raiding Harper's Ferry also was a heroic, aiming to eventually end slavery. Thus Brown is both a terrorist and a hero, committing terrible atrocities, but battling against the worst atrocity of all, slavery.
Ones upbringing helps to shape what their later endeavors in life will entail. Brown, born to an old Yankee stock and named for a grandfather who died in the Revolutionary war, suffered many losses as a child. Some of Brown’s earliest memories include sin, chastisement, and dislocation. Trauma at such a young age can often impact someone permanently, in Brown’s case, the death of his mother and his father’s devotion to hard work and strict piety, have shaped him to have a certain drive and confidence. With his strong Calvanist roots, Brown wanted to do right for the sake of his family, almost as though he was carrying out certain acts to make his parents proud and to uphold the family name. There is no doubt that Brown was devoted to abolishing slavery but his acts of violence, particularly the Pottawatomie Massacre, make if difficult for me to conclude whether his deeds were acts of terrorism or if his cause was enough to be considered heroic.
Through the early chapters of Horowitz' Midnight Rising, it is clear that brown is completely devoted to abolishing slavery. It is also clear that this belief is a product of his strong religious beliefs. Brown is born and raised a Christian boy and from an early age, religion takes a prominent role in his life. It is also notable that Brown's first memory is one of being whipped for an entire day. From this it is not difficult to determine where his violent streak comes from. Brown also suffered great trauma in his early years losing his mother at a very young age. However, his difficult childhood does not excuse his character as an adult from examination.
Brown fights for an honorable cause, but he allows the cause to consume him. Brown is motivated to become an abolitionist by his Calvinist beliefs, however, as he grows deeper and deeper into his quest to end slavery, he uses the Bible as an excuse for his actions. Brown seems to believe he is morally superior to the general population. He feigns humility, but it is quite clear that Brown believes himself to be chosen by God. This is evidenced by his fascination with Gideon, the archetypical hero from the Old Testament. I do not know yet if Brown is a terrorist or a hero or even insane, but he is certainly dangerous, as the Potowommie massacre makes clear.
I believe that the first six chapters of Anthony Horowitz’s, Midnight Rising, give enough evidence to support the opinion that John Brown is indeed a terrorist. Although no one can take away from Brown’s passion and heroic intentions, his methods to end slavery are inhumane, disturbing and more or less, insane. Brown’s cause is a noble one. I think it is fair to say that most people on this blog would agree that slavery is immoral. I, too, completely agree with Brown that slavery is wrong and I support those who stand behind this belief and try within their power to rid the world of it, but I cannot support one who uses violence as a justification to combat this form of evil. How can one justify the means to an end when one has resorted to violence and has not exhausted every possible non violent solution? To me, when one resorts to violence, it means they have given up and are not strong enough or passionate enough to complete their cause. To me when someone, like Brown, compromises their own beliefs, religious or not, and finds ways to justify their actions is someone who has lost their moral standing and is no longer beneficial to the cause. From my perspective, the Pottawatomie affair is no different than the destruction of the former Twin Towers. They are both acts of guerrilla warfare and tactics. They are acts made to create a disproportionate disruption through limited means and resources. It could be argued that a terrorist is a person who chooses to use violence and tactics of intimidation to move forward his or her singular and fundamental position or philosophy. For Brown, it was equality of human rights and his deep hatred of slavery. Brown’s inability to speak convincingly well in a public and attract masses and manage himself financially may also be reasons why he resorted to small, reckless, and bloody actions. Brown’s reasoning for his actions is also no different from that of a Muslim extremist. Brought up as a Calvinist, Brown believed in a very literal translation of the Bible and that God had made him the Gideon of his time. A martyr in many cases. A Muslim extremist or zealot who translates the Quran very literally could make the same argument and say his or her actions are made in the name of Allah. In America, we believe that slavery is bad and therefore Brown would seem to be on the side of good and justice. For these reasons, I’m sure many would support and praise Brown for his performance, but I do not believe we can truly condone his violent actions when he took the lives of his fellow citizens in the name of something that is for a good cause. When morals are compromised, true meaning and good intentions are forever lost.
As many others have previously stated, I believe it to be incredibly difficult, even impossible to decide wether Brown was a hero or a terrorist. Although personally I would not have agreed with many of the actions Brown felt necessary to take in order to ensure the abolition of slavery, I do respect him for doing what he felt was necessary and right at the time. The cause of Brown's devotion to abolitionism is evidently due to his strict religious up-bringing. As Chris said, Brown's early childhood beatings show why Brown felt the need to go to such extreme measures, such as killing the Kansas slave owners, to purge others of their wrong doing through violent acts. Although I do not condone Brown's brutal acts of violence in Kansas, I understand the influence his childhood had on him. At this point in the book I believe it to be too difficult to label Brown as either a hero or a terrorist because a single question still goes unanswered; how successful is he in the freeing of slaves?
As of now I agree with Alexa and believe that John Brown is a hero. Brown has all the qualities of a hero. He is caring, dedicated, and has a just cause. From the first few chapters Brown is shown as someone who feels strongly about the lives of others. Although later Brown may become a killer, at the beginning of Midnight Rising we find out that he repeatedly goes into periods of mourning after the loss of animals and his mother. He is totally devoted to his cause. He loses his home to go to North Elba and Kanas, his sons to the battlefield, and a relationship with his children and wives who remain behind. Brown also has an important cause that was justified by his strict religious beliefs. He truly believes that God sent him for the purpose of freeing the slaves like Moses whose duty was to free the oppressed in Egypt. Browns intentions were pure—at least at the start. Brown fought for freedom and what he believed in. Our whole lives we are all told that we can make a difference in the world and that we should fight for what we think is right. Brown actually had the courage to try and for that he should be commended not punished!
As of this point in the text, it is fairly clear to me that John Brown is a terrorist. In modern times, one of the main goals of any terrorist is to not only create fear and unrest, but to do so on such a scale that it is impossible to ignore, thus "furthering" their cause (World Trade Center, Boston Marathon). I find Brown's attacks in Kansas in Missouri to be in this vein of terrorist activity, mostly because Brown made certain that his actions would be in the national spotlight, exemplified by the letter Brown wrote to the New York Tribune after his attack in Missouri mocking the pro-slavery community. In addition, John Brown shows the religious fanaticism commonly found with terrorists today. After being raised in a highly Calvinist environment, I believe Brown was completely indoctrinated in the religious beliefs of his upbringing. This religious fervor in my opinion made him conceited to a fault, believing that his way was always the just and right way, undoubtedly causing the numerous failures of Brown's business endeavors. As well, Brown's terrorist-like fanaticism can be compared to a modern day Jihadist. Believing he was the next Gideon, Brown was lead to violence to do the Lord's work, just as a Jihadist resorts to violence to defend the Islamic faith. Although it is only the first third of the book, I am fairly convinced that my opinion of Brown as a terrorist will only be further confirmed as I continue reading.
Despite the thorough background of John Brown's life in Part 1, I was yet to identify his character as either a heroic, terroristic or insane at the end of the section. It was only after deep consideration of exactly what each characteristic meant that was able to conclude he was all of the above. John Brown is without a doubt the definition of a bourgeois hero. Despite a modest upbringing, Brown rises to fight for those who cannot fight for themselves. He spends the entity of his life fighting for what he believes is right. His belief in freedom for all despite race is heroically advanced. He continually fights to save slaves from there oppressors and never falters. Terrorism is characterized as the use of violence to provoke fear. Modernly a religious drive has also been associated with terrorism. Brown's tendency towards violence was first prevalent in his pro- corporal punishment view. Throughout the rest of this section he continued to intensify his use of force to achieve his goals. Brown is also driven by his Calvinist Christian views which inspire him to fight for the equality of races.
As I read this first part of Brown's story I continually tried to convince myself he was entirely sane. John Brown knew exactly the intensity and severity of his actions. He even foresaw a "bleeding Kansas". I convinced myself that one cannot be insane if they understand their own actions. However by the end of this reading I had found it was quite the opposite. Whether Brown was forming the Secret Six or convincing his family of his case, he was entirely aware of his actions. It is because of his deep understanding that he is so insane. He realizes the horrors and the tragedy however he thrives off it. He loves the pain of others, and for that reason he is certifiably insane. Further reading is necessary to solidify my label for Brown or potentially convert it to a better suited one.
John Brown shows an undeniable drive to act, and act fast on his abolitionist beliefs. His mistake is that he gets lost in his beliefs, to an extent where it causes him to kill. I would not say he is crazy by any means, instead he is a man that puts God and his ideologies in front of his own life. Most men who fall into this category tend to execute the radical and go beyond what others would deem necessary. That is why it is so easy to call Brown a terrorist. He is easily characterized as someone with radical beliefs that will kill to fulfill them. Yet I wouldn’t call him a terrorist because his cause couldn’t be a more pure one. He is fighting for the freedom of millions of people not over which God someone believes in.
I agree with Brooks in that I do not believe that John Brown should be considered a terrorist, based on the fact that he was fighting to free enslaved people. We as modern Americans pride ourselves because of the laws we have against racial discrimination. I believe that we would not have progressed this far if it was not for the acts of John Brown, and to answer Katie's question: I believe that John Brown was successful in freeing slaves, due to the fact that his actions led to events that ended slavery on a massive scale. Looking back at what people have posted earlier in the summer, most use the acts in Kansas as leading examples as to why John Brown should be considered a terrorist. When I first read the chapter in the book dedicated to this event, I saw the killings as an act of terror as well, mostly based on the letters John Junior wrote defending his father. He said that those sentenced to die must be slain "in such a manner as to likely cause a restraining fear" (54). This seemed to me to be unmistakably an act of terror. But, when rereading the chapter I realized that this was never mentioned by any man who was actually on the mission. Solomon, another one of John's sons, who was on the mission, said that the act was a strike "merely to begin the fight that we saw was being forced upon us" (55). This illustrates that the act in Kansas was something that was undergone to catalyze the conflict that was inevitably coming (the conflict that would eventually put an end to slavery in the United States), but taking too long to start, and not something that was intensionally done to strike fear.
After reading the first part of the novel, I was undecided as to whether I would classify Brown as a hero or a terrorist. In my opinion, he has qualities of both. Brown's practical religious beliefs, tenderness with animals, love for his wife and children, and desire to free his "fellow-men" in bondage struck me as admirable. He is motivated to do good for an unselfish cause. Unlike some abolitionists who do not condone slavery but do nothing to stop it, Brown wants to take action. It is clear to me he truly believes slavery to be immoral, a surprising view for a man of the time period. Even the Founding Fathers, claiming all men are created equal, used euphemisms to allow for the continuity of this practice in a country whose ideals are universal freedom and liberty. Brown's view is progressive for his time. Slavery was considered a norm in the mid-nineteenth century and Brown took it upon himself to bring change, certainly a very heroic thing to do. However, Brown's motives could also be viewed as terrorist. He plans to use violence to intimidate and coerce others, and is committing treason against the government. Brown is aware what he intends to do will certainly result in a loss of lives and much bloodshed. Brown's devout passion for what he believes in is clear. I am interested to see whether his passion will result in accomplishment or downfall on his part. Right now, I am still undecided as to whether Brown is a hero or terrorist.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWell, I think that we can agree that John Brown was a fanatic, but beyond that, it's really a question of what time period we're considering. The man who bathed a lamb in his household tub was hardly comparable to the one that slaughtered five civilians (and mutilated their corpses) in Pottawatomie. The former could be a Disney protagonist, whereas the latter seems a clear-cut terrorist. I was particularly struck by the reason he wrote his brief autobiography: a child gave him thirty cents for his cause and he gave the piece to him as a gift. True, he had political motives in writing it, but his later inability to compromise and political ineptitude suggest that he simply wanted to instruct, as any good Calvinist would.
ReplyDeleteAs far as insanity goes, his state of mind wasn't put into question until Harper's Ferry was almost upon him. Even then, his eccentricities were barely indistinguishable from religious fervor and egotism. While he certainly lacked the elements of common sense (frugality and a capacity to admit failings/failure), he didn't seem to be overly out of touch with reality. In fact, his eccentricity could well have contributed to his unusual tolerance for both Native and African Americans.
Loyalty would be an understatement in describing John Brown's ardent devotion to God, and this undeniable fanaticism could easily be mistaken for insanity. Like Althea said, he didn't seem too out of touch with reality, but rather so possessed by his beliefs and missions that his faith often overcame his ability to rationalize. The intense passion that he held made him restless to the point where he had an insatiable craving for action. I thought it was interesting how, in Kansas, Brown impatiently waited for any reason to launch a strike against the South and its "peculiar institution." It is tempting to call Brown crazy, but at this point I don't think there is enough evidence to do such.
ReplyDeleteThe question of whether John Brown is a hero or terrorist can be answered either way, completely based on the lens through which you look at his actions. He was a hero in that he made sacrifices for a greater cause that he believed in, even involving his children when he knew that their lives were at stake. He fought for freedom and equal rights, both of which are values that our country proudly displays today. On the other hand, Brown could be viewed as a "long-bearded fundamentalist," no different from the members of al-Qaeda, who spread violence and wreaked havoc throughout the country. Do you think John Brown should be admired or condemned?
John Brown's absolute devotion to slavery, a cause so much greater than himself, ultimately consumes his life. As Hillman mentions, this passionate devotion could be mistaken for insanity. "Insanity" certainly is not the right word choice to describe John Brown because he has reasoning to his sometimes relentless missions, seriously believes in a religion which clearly drives him to wholeheartedly sticking with his cause, and has a series of intelligent and prominent followers such as Frederick Douglass. Another reason Brown could be incorrectly stamped as insane is because of his athirst character. Since Brown is so restless for action, events such as the Pottawatomie Massacre label his cause as violent and impulsive. Although Brown shows complete consecration to exterminating slavery, he does not show insanity.
ReplyDeleteAlthough one could characterize John Brown as a hero or a terrorist, I personally do not think he should be labeled either. He shows dedication to a principle greater than himself in order to better humanity, but he believes the only way to rid of slavery, a savage and violent practice, is bloodshed. Brown is motivated by his faith and moral beliefs to exterminate slavery and reinstitute a new government, but he still should not be defined as a terrorist. He does not necessarily strive to terrorize innocent people, although that is sometimes an effect after the fact. I believe he is trying to greater humanity within the country, but truly believes there is no other way to do so besides violence.
I found the part mentioning Brown's upbringing and his fierce adherence to his religious views interesting in the emphasis on the fact that all sinners, including himself, need to pay for theirs sins. Clearly Brown sees slavery as a sin and feels all who practice it must repent. I feel like Brown was acting on impulse from his years of strictly following this ideal and, to answer Hillman's question, I believe Brown should be condemned as a terrorist because of it. I personally cannot call someone who senselessly kills people because their beliefs oppose their own, like he did to the 5 proslavery supporters in Kansas, a hero. Add to this the fact that devotion to a cause is a characteristic shared by every terrorist the world has ever known. Despite the fact that it may or may not have been necessary to rebel against the Sourtherners in Kansas, Brown did exactly nothing to help the situation, he only added fuel to the fire and made a bad reputation for himself and his family.
ReplyDeleteJohn Brown’s Calvinist upbringing and intense outlook corrupts his honorable mission: to abolish slavery completely. While it is clear he loathed a loathsome tradition, Brown’s irrational actions, such as at the Pottawatomie Massacre, prove disastrous for himself and his cause.
ReplyDeleteI think it is clear John Brown’s abolitionist goals were tainted by his fervent hatred for slavery and anyone who supported it, but I do not believe he was either extreme: a hero or a terrorist. It was not heroic to anyone, including the enslaved people, to murder proslavery men. I can understand how Brown’s impulsivity and mercilessness can label him a terrorist; however, I do not believe his rash actions merely worsened the situation and damaged his and his family’s reputation, as Alex says. Rather, he made Northerners and Southerners alike realize slavery would not and should not continue unopposed. I do not agree with the way he went about protesting slavery; however, the mission was certainly not completely lost.
John Brown's obsession with the abolition of slavery can be easily traced to his devout Christian roots and fierce devotion to God and the Bible. To answer Hillman's question, I believe that John Brown is someone to be admired. In a time where slavery was thriving in the United States, he was willing to take a stand for what he believed in despite the fact that the abolitionist movement was, at the time, largely unpopular. Although perhaps his methodology was not the best, I believe that his passion and intent are laudable. I do not agree with Brown's decision to murder proslavery men in Kansas, however when you see Brown's point of view he felt that it was something that had to be done. His decision-making was rather questionable at times, and I think that the reason for this is that the issue of abolition truly drove him crazy and became the primary focus of his life. He was willing to put the issue of abolition before the wellbeing of his own family. That kind of selflessness is praiseworthy despite his controversial methodology.
ReplyDeleteJohn Brown was not very successful in several aspects of his life, but strived in organizing movements against proslavery forces. I believe that his selfless devotion to abolishing slavery caused civilians to believe in his efforts and want to help. They flocked to Brown because of his tenacity and relentlessness towards the cause. Brown dedicated his life to this cause and would do anything for it; even if it inflicted hardship on his family and himself. Because of this he was greatly respected as a leader by many. He was willing to put his life at risk to help the cause, which inspired other, including most of his children, to do the same.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Spencer that John Brown is someone to be admired. All of his children greatly admired the work that he did and many of them followed in their father’s footsteps. However numerous others also followed in his footsteps and fully gave themselves to the fight against slavery. He fought relentlessly for the abolition of slavery, which at the time was not supported by many. He got wealthy men to invest money and weapons in his fight against slavery. Brown had many failed business ventures, so if was not his savvy business experience that made these men give him money and supplies. I believe they in one way or another admired what Brown was doing and believed he could make a difference in the struggle against slavery. Even though at times, he took his actions to the extreme, he was driven by religious purpose. He truly felt he was the chosen one by God to end slavery. This being said, his actions could be seen as not merciless murders, but rather what had to be done to end slavery. Obviously killing proslavery supporters would do little to end slavery, but nevertheless abolitionist that supported John Brown followed him into battles and admired his leadership.
As others have posted, I am undecided about whether I would label John Brown a hero or a terrorist. As for a hero, John Brown risked his life and his family's to save people in need. This is an admirable trait that not many people possess. Brown followed his beliefs about what is right and did not stop even when times were rough, such as with the financial situation. This devotion could label him as a villain as well. His extreme missions to follow his religious beliefs became out of hand at some points, for example the Pottawatomie Massacre. As Madison said, John Brown had an honorable mission but his bravery was obscured by his obsessiveness. Although he was trying to help people, he was hurting others during this process. But, that is true with almost any honorable mission. This is why John Brown is such a controversial subject.
ReplyDeleteNo one can deny that John Brown was devoted to the abolitionist cause. His devotion went so far as to encourage and approve the murder of American citizens. His devotion even usurped his religious faithfulness. However, as tenacious as John Brown was, I was surprised to read about his inconsistency. He practiced tolerance towards natives and slaves, but was not tolerant of whites whose beliefs differed from his. He ardently opposed the sins of others, but found that his sins were excusable.
ReplyDeleteJohn Brown was supposedly a faithful Calvinist, who was averse to all sin. He viewed slavery as breaking a covenant with God and deemed it morally wrong. However, in his, “Declaration of Liberty,” he threatens to use violence to secure natural rights for all slaves. This acceptance of violence even resulted in the murder of Americans who supported slavery. John Brown’s struggle against slavery led me to wonder; When is murder excusable for the sake of one’s cause? Do you think murder was excusable in John Brown’s case?
John Brown had one goal; to abolish slavery. I agree with Cashel in saying that his devotion overruled his religious faithfulness and that he was inconsistent. He gradually let this idea of abolition take over his life and this drove him to become someone completely different then the John Brown at the beginning of the book. I use the murders of the proslavery supporters as an example. Brown murdered them because they believed in ideas that were different then his, which is inexcusable and ruthless.
ReplyDeleteResolution can come from something other than violence and Brown believes that the only way to fully extinguish slavery is through violence and killing anyone that is associated with it. Brown claims that these murders were an act of preemptive self defense, but he had no proof to back up this thought. That said, Brown's intentions were partly clouded by this and other acts of violence, but I still believe that Brown had a noble cause when it came to the idea of abolishing slavery. Throughout Part 1 of Midnight Rising, I could not help but think, "Is Brown making any real progress in his mission to abolish slavery?"
As almost everyone else has previously said, John Brown’s eventual downfall was his willingness to defend what he believed in and his upbringing. His religious views began to control him when Brown seemingly convinced himself that he must preform God’s wish in ceasing the spread of slavery. I found this interesting to consider whether he used this religious obligation to justify his own actions, or whether this was the true force behind his actions.
ReplyDeleteWhen discussing the issue whether John Brown is a terrorist or hero, one must understand both points of view of the people that were affected by these horrific murders. Because of this, I believe that he cannot be labeled as either. He was a man who had extreme devotion to ending the spread of slavery, and this devotion became his fatal flaw. His intentions had been just, but his aggression and anger towards proslavery advocates caused him to become a murderer and was driven by the idea of punishing them for their horrific lifestyle. In doing so he had caused himself to be no better off, morally, than proslavery advocates, and had created a negative view regarding the abolitionist movement.
Agreeing primarily with Jennie, I struggle to categorize John Brown as either a hero or a terrorist. Throughout the beginning of Midnight Rising, Brown shows hero-like qualities, but is often blinded by his own adherence to the abolitionist movement. In Part 1, there is no argument about whether or not Brown is dedicated to the freeing of African American slaves- it consumes his entire life. Traveling back and forth, he rarely has time to communicate with his family, and besides the sending of letters, has minimal conversation unless he is trying to recruit one of the members. To Brown, it seems as if the abolition of slavery holds higher presidency over his family life. As previously mentioned in a few responses, one of Brown's catalytic forces is his upbringing in Calvinism. These religious views lead Brown to believe he is a soldier of God, and justifies any wrongdoings he may commit by believing it is all for the greater good of the people.
ReplyDeleteThe crimes against humanity (e.g. murder of innocents, slaughtering of slave owners), Brown commits throughout Part 1 of Midnight Rising could be used to label him as a terrorist: however; if it were not for his outstanding commitment to the abolition of slavery, and his belief these steps would benefit his movement, these actions would not have been taken. As Grace explained, Brown's judgement is clouded by his own beliefs in right or wrong. With this being said, he has created his own abstraction of reality in which his way is the right and proper way of doing things. Any threat to his institution is a threat to orderly existence. This concept may have contributed to the drastic measures Brown took in order to keep his movement going. Answering Cashel's question, I believe murder was not excusable in Brown's case. Although he had a just cause, murder was not the only option. Owen Brown, John's father, was also raised in a strict Calvinist upbringing, and was just as against sin. Owen believed the freeing of African American slaves could be achieved through defense, and was opposed to taking up arms in order to achieve one's goal.
Agreeing with those who are also undecided, I keep going back and forth on whether I would classify John Brown as a hero or a terrorist. John Brown was in the mindset that it was his sole responsibility to abolish slavery, as appointed by God, leading him to devote all aspects of his life to the mission. He put his vision of a morally righteous world, ridden of slavery, above himself, and risked everything to fulfill his goal. He had noble intentions, recruiting followers who admired him for his persistency in not giving up and his total devotion to the cause. Even when he needed helping himself, he consistently helped the abolishing slave movement first as a priority. He wanted nothing selfish out of his mission, all he strived for was to see the slaves freed. In that sense, I would consider John Brown a hero since he wanted to change the corrupt world for the better.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, John Brown’s dishonorable actions make it a controversial topic. Following his faith, he viewed slavery as a sin and in the process of abolishing it; he let his hatred of proslavery people override his primary goal, turning to violence and acting unjustly. He used the mechanism of terror to his advantage, striking fear into those who opposed him. John Brown saw his violent strategy of abolishing slavery as the only way to get the Southerners’ attention, since it was evident that through peaceful means slavery was not going to die out till far along in the future, so he saw his ruthless movement as the only way to immediately abolish slavery. With a clouded mind he turned to violence since he thought it the quickest way to see results. As explained by Lindsey, John Brown’s actions cannot be dismissed as him having no other choice, since he could have taken a less violent approach because killing the proslavery Southerners did not make the lives of the slaves notably better. Instead he could have followed his father’s method of talking sense into the Southerners, making them aware of their sins. John Brown does not fit perfectly into the definition of a hero or a terrorist, making it a highly debatable topic.
Although I view John Brown as one who possesses an unstable mind, I would not consider him insane quite yet. Brown has devoted himself to abolishing slavery, holding strong to the idea that the wrath of God will be unleashed on those who continue to support it. Though many favored the abolition of slavery, few were willing to make a stand. Many saw it as "an existing evil, for which we are not responsible", while Brown believed battling slavery was his God-given destiny. He was so devoted to the abolitionist movement that it seemed as though his own soul had been pierced by the iron of slavery. To me, his intense desire to protect the inalienable rights of all men veils his fragile mind.
ReplyDeleteI found it interesting how quickly John Brown changed regarding use of violence. In the beginning of his mission Brown models himself after William Lloyd Garrison, a Quaker who believed that non-violence and Christian uplift would help Americans conquer slavery. Furthermore, Brown was so disgusted with the fighting in the War of 1812 that he paid fines to avoid military service. This sounds nothing like the man in control of the brutal Pottawatomie Massacre years later. By killing supporters of slavery, Brown only increased tensions between the North and the South. Although he raised awareness for the abolition of slavery, I disagree with the way he went about doing it.
As many others have said, it is impossible to label John Brown as either a hero or terrorist. Brown's cause was an honorable one: he believed he was fighting for the freedom of his fellow human beings. His actions, however, were inexcusable for any cause. His extremism makes it easier to label Brown as a terrorist. There are other aspects of John Brown's mission which are reminiscent of a terrorist. To use our current war on terrorism as an example, Brown is strikingly similar to jihadists in that he justifies murder with the reasoning that he is fighting God's mission. As Lindsey said, Brown was "blinded" by his devotion to the anti-slavery cause as well as his devotion to God.
ReplyDeleteAs Griffin mentioned, I was confused by Brown's sudden jump from pacifist abolitionist to homicidal warrior. John Brown originally believed in the peaceful teachings of William Lloyd Garrison, even distributing "The Liberator". Just a few short years later, this same man played a hand in the bloody Pottowatomie Massacre, mercilessly slaughtering five men simply to make a statement and gain awareness for his cause. However honorable a cause, these actions are inexcusable. Surely Brown could have found a more peaceful way to get his point across. To respond to Grace's question on if Brown was making any progress in his abolition of slavery, I would say that yes, he was. The Pottowatomie Massacre was national news and gained Brown, as well as the abolitionist cause, massive attention. It also increased tensions between the North and the South. While I do believe the Pottowatomie Massacre as well as other battles Brown fought in the name of slavery helped him make progress for his cause, I believe he could have made this same progress without killing others. Brown's actions were successful, but not excusable.
To start off, I am honestly surprised at how many people on here are ( or were, I suppose, considering the next few chapters may have made some of you more decisive) undecided on the big question of if John Brown is a terrorist or a hero. Although some of you have made some good points to the contrary, I can not see Brown as anything BUT a terrorist. Personally, no matter how good the intentions or cause, murder in the name of an ideal, whether political or religious, is a senseless, terrible thing, no less pointless than murder for money, drugs, or other property. Like Cashel wrote, we must decide where to draw the line between breakable and unbreakable, between worth it and forgivable, or meaningless and unconscionable. Well my line is here: anyone who commits murder in the name of anything but immediate self-defense of his/herself or his/her loved ones, deserves no praise or clemency ( and revenge is not self-defense either ). I see Brown as no different than any al Qaeda member ( as Hillman mentioned ), especially because when it comes down to it, Brown is driven less by sympathy for slaves and their rights, and more by his fanatical religious need to wipe out sin. Brown also reminds me of Manson, because the cult like movement Brown forms with his sons, or the fictional Tobias Henkel from "Criminal Minds", because of the similarities the two share in the early loss of their mothers, the abuse they receive from their fathers, and their harsh, highly influential, religious upbringings. Therefore, when it is so easy to profile John Brown as a serial killer, can you blame me for ignoring some of his more redeeming qualities. Just because I can understand and even feel sorry for some murders, I don't always see killing someone else as the finale answer. Especially if someone is trying to promote a controversial cause; murdering the opposition will not draw in more supporters.
ReplyDelete( NOTE: It should be taken into account however, that I am biased in my opinion of Brown because I have a strong dislike of religious zealots, doesn't matter which religion. Religion is supposed to be about hope and community, not punishment and shoving one's invisible deities down another person's throat. I, perhaps unjustly, have a strong contempt of anyone like Brown, the fighters in the Crusades, or modern day Islamic extremists. For pious holy men, these people seemed to have no qualms about killing if they think it is their god's will, or that he will forgive them. )
- Amanda Zarni
That's true, but there's another factor that we need to take into consideration, that being the time period. Morality is subjective; not just because of different religious moral codes, but also because of social conditions. After all, one of the hallmarks of the system Brown was trying to destroy was the abuse and murder of beings with no civil rights. The 1800s were also times in which corporal punishment and wife beating were widely considered acceptable, the establishment of degrees of murder had barely begun to reduce the use of the death penalty, and humane treatment of criminals and the insane had yet to leave Europe. John Brown has to be viewed, at least in part, as a product of the times he lived in. Had he murdered BLACK, rather than white, civilians, his crime would have been one of property damage. I don't approve of his attempt at a religious crusade, but I think that judging it by today's standards is a mistake.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you about the fact violence was more commonplace at the time, but even then, it was used as a punishment (which is different) or was not really talked about because habits like wife beating were not truly condoned. I suppose if we are taking this into account however, then we must look at the question asked of us in two parts: is John Brown a hero, terrorist, or both, in today's society? What would he have been considered in his day?
DeleteI would say terrorist for both, because no matter what he went against his own country and fellow Americans using violence and terror, in an attempt to change the ideals of others to match his own. Despite having different degrees of murder and such today, the definition of a terrorist is consistent, and Brown fits this definition.
Rather than a hero or a terrorist, in my opinion John Brown is a martyr. He was willing to go to whatever length to abolish slavery completely. Brown has qualities of a hero, his determination and will to sacrifice, but also the traits of a terrorist, his extremist religious thoughts and the extreme measures he takes to achieve his goal. Like Cassidy said, its hard to label him either because the cause he was fighting was an honorable one. In my eyes I see Brown as a martyr because of the suffering and obstacles he has to overcome to push forward with his goal of stopping slavery. Although I do not agree with some of Brown's actions in the movement of abolition, he had the right intentions but was too consumed in abolishing slavery to see what was morally correct. For example, murdering the men that were proslavery from Kansas could be seen as an act of terrorism but Brown's actions were too clouded by his drive to abolition to see what he was doing was morally wrong.
ReplyDeleteUp to this point in the book, I believe it is difficult to label Brown as a hero or terrorist. However, although his intentions are for the better, Brown's actions reflect that of a terrorist. He goes against the government and kills several settlers of the Pottawatomie. The bodies were found ripped apart, not killed in the most efficient way. Understanding Brown's reasoning allows a reader to have the opinion of a hero but I can see a terrorist (up to part 2 that is, he may change). The main argument against my point would be that Brown's judgement was clouded and much different compared to those of today to which I struggle to figure out if that played a role in his slaughter. As to being admired or condemned, I believe Brown should certainly be admired, but his violence should be a warning to the human race.
ReplyDeleteI believe that John Brown is a combination of a madman and a terrorist. Brown faced a troubled childhood, and a tyrannical father who believed in strict adherence to Calvinism. This strict adherence to Calvinism is what gave Brown this "mission". Though his "mission" for abolition is a heroic thought, his execution of it is both illegal, and immoral. I agree with Amanda's statement above; when murder is committed and it is not in immediate self-defense, no matter how holy of an act it may seem it is still wrong.
ReplyDeleteThe most memorable part about this section was watching the troubled child grow into an even more self righteous adult inspired by the Old Testament character and his own personal idol Gideon. Gideon is one of the driving aspects behind why Brown is fighting for abolition; Brown wants most of all to be just like Gideon. Correlating with Gideon, Brown was in charge of a small army called the "Northern army". And he may or may not have physically participated (based on several different affidavits) in the slaughter of those proslavery party members. But bottom line he orchestrated the attack. No matter what one's opinion is, Brown shouldn't have taken what he considered was law into his hands and murdered people based on that. Therefore he is a terrorist for attacking his fellow countrymen, and a madman for crusading and killing in the name of his God.
Without a doubt, John Brown is a terrorist. The fact that one would even consider deeming his acts heroic proves the perversity of the country we live in. Not to point fingers, but individuals like Brown are the reason America still solves its issues through the barrel of a gun, or with the pin of a hand grenade. This question, however, is assessed through a very biased eye. Of course, as Americans we feel an extremely strong sense of patriotism, which can often outweigh our own assessments of the conflicts themselves. However, if one were to ask an Al-Qaeda member if he thought the actions of Hussein or Bin Laden were heroic, he or she would likely have no doubt in their mind that they were commendable. This kind of alternate perspective puts an American reader at a disadvantage in terms of making accurate judgements. However, terror is terror. Regardless of the cause and regardless of the severity of suffrage, the answer simply cannot be murder. Referring to Jennies post, she claims that Brown did not strive to terrorize innocent people. Yet once the term ''innocent'' comes into play, a whole new issue arises. Who is John Brown to judge innocence in the first place? Are we, as people, allowed to classify individuals as innocent or guilty, and then act upon these classifications? For someone with such a strong belief in the Calvinist faith, it surprises me that Brown would even conflict himself with these matters. I can't understand how one can believe so strongly in predestination, yet feel that he has the power to determine the fate of others. I would assume that someone so religious would entrust God with the right to condemn those worthy of eternal damnation.
ReplyDeleteIt's a shame Orwell hadn't been present before Brown's time, because after reading about the Pottawatamie Massacre, and understanding browns incentive to attack, it all began to seem very idiotic to me. If John Brown wanted to gain "Big Brother" like power, so to speak, he was not approaching the conflict in the right way. In order to defeat your enemies, you must conform them, not kill them. As practiced by Big Brother's Party itself in 1984, they knew that killing the enemy would only incite rioters with greater impetus to follow in the idealogical footsteps of the defeated. However, if you conform the opponent to believe in your cause, they are now completely receptive and practically incapable of any form of revolt. It will be great to see if terror trumps reason later in the novel...
As all would now agree, the abolition of slavery was a huge step forward in American history-but not one that we pioneered. America was one of the later Western countries to abolish slavery, and Brown knew this when he killed five in the Pottawatomie Massacre. Though his intents were from our point of view honorable, it is, as others have mentioned, hard to put oneself past his bloody way of solving the problem. One is left thinking if maybe a desire for power, religious devotion, or revenge were corrupting his pure intentions and leading to violence. However, Brown also knew that if the Southern economy were booming on the back of slave labor, the U.S. would not abolish slavery, and he would have to bring attention to the issue in some way, and he chose violence. It is also important to note that Brown lived in a time where violence was rampant on the unregulated Western edge of American expansion, and he claimed to only be acting in “self defense”. It is hard to argue with his methods when considering that his actions presumably (as one can only assume having read up until this point in the book) led to the eventual abolition of slavery.
ReplyDeleteMany tend use the term terrorist to describe those whose determination for their cause necessitated a loss of life if that person’s efforts did not benefit their own life. Religious toleration and many other freedoms we enjoy today would not have been made possible without bloodshed. If we benefit from the bloodshed, we commemorate it. Americans even celebrate the day when we killed enough British soldiers to become an independent nation; the Fourth of July. In both situations, Brown’s, and that of the early settlers in America, both were advocating for acts of change which clashed with the laws and ideas of the government, which at the time was considered terrorism, but in today’s view would be considered heroism. With that having been said, though a bit of both terrorist and hero, I would consider John Brown more of a hero.
John Brown initially supported the Quaker ideas of William Lloyd Garrison. With time however, Brown drifted away from these ideals and began to realize that to accomplish what he needed he must use more extreme methods. He believed God gave him the mission to abolish slavery and therefore had a cause for the traumatic events he plotted. I definitely aggree that Brown was a terrorist, however, I also think that his intentions got away from him and he gradually became absorbed in the notion of violence and perhaps switched back and forth between exhibiting behaviors of a terrorist and a murderor. At The Pottawatomie Massacre John Brown knew what he had to do and why. He did it for a reason and illuminated a cause. On the other hand, I think his intensity got away from him and he continued to create violent uprisings without accomplishing much more than he did during the first massacre.
ReplyDeleteOn another note, it cannot go unsaid that John Brown was a hero as well. Many people were strong abolitionists like Brown, however he was one of few that were successful in making progress toward abolishing slavery, even if it meant risking his life or failure. Unfortunately, I think Brown thought that the only way to do this was through violence. I agree with Cassidy in that I think there could have been less violent ways to create awareness. However, he felt strongly for a cause, took action, and helped to promise freedom to every American.
Being that it is early in the tale of John Brown and his escapade, I find it difficult to label "Pottawatomie Brown" as a hero, terrorist, or maniac. Brown has not yet put his actions out of reach of being described as any of the three. I also think that the time period in which Brown lives needs to be taken into account. His murderous acts against the Pottawatomie settlers, as gruesome as may be, would not have been nearly as severe nor uncommon as it would be today. The Hatfield and McCoy family's who battled during the same time period, experienced many gruesome deaths, eerily similar to those of the settlers. There were many more killings like this in the U.S. and cannot be looked at as if it happened in today's environment.
ReplyDeleteStaying on the time period topic, I found it interesting how loyal and devoted John Brown's family is to his cause. The abolitionist motive was not necessarily theirs, but they went to extremes, even death, to support him. In a different era, Brown's kin may have challenged him making his journey much more difficult.
I believe that there are two ways to look at John Brown, objectively and subjectively. Objectively, John Brown is a terrorist due to the fact that he uses violence to spread mass fear over a populace in order to achieve his political and religious goals. A perfect example of this was the Pottawatomie massacre in which Brown and his cohorts killed and mutilated five civilians who happened to be pro-slavery to spread fear in an already unstable "bleeding" Kansas. To further examine how John Brown is a terrorist, I will take Hillman up on his offer to compare him to an Al-Qaeda member. Both parties justify their actions through the belief that a higher power has given them a holy mission to rid the world of an unforgivable evil. Brown's "Gideon-like quest" has as much fervor as the jihad of an Islamic fundamentalist, the difference being one sees this evil as slavery while the other one sees it as the West and Western Ideals. With this holy quest in mind, John Brown has demonstrated and will no doubt demonstrate again to what lengths he would go to in order to carry out his mission, having already orchestrated a series of murders and kidnappings and in his mind all of that is justified in the name of God. I fail to see how his actions are different than that of Al-Qaeda who employ the same tactics of murder and kidnapping in Allah's name and also expect a reward from it. From what I have read so far, Brown would happily take martyrdom over surrender knowing that he would become a hero to all abolitionists of his time. This is the exact same thought that a suicide bomber has, to be remembered as a hero for carrying out his holy duty in the name of Islam.
ReplyDeleteWhere the line between terrorist and hero becomes blurry is when one looks at Brown subjectively, taking into account what he was fighting against. I have no doubt many saw Brown as the "good guy" since we view slavery as a terrible act today and the story is just as simple as good vs. evil. Spencer and Laura said that Brown should even be praised for his actions and the sacrifices and hardships he endured only serve to highlight his courage and determination. I doubt either of them would praise a suicide bomber for the sacrifices he has made or call him courageous. This is where the controversy comes in. Both Brown and Al-Qaeda use the same doctrine of terror and violence to achieve their goals except modern American views says that one is justifiable while the other is not. A black and white comparison here would be that Brown fights against slavery, therefore Brown is good. Al-Qaeda fights against America and The West, therefore Al-Qaeda is bad. Both perfectly fall under the definition of a terrorist, but our American views cause us to look at each through with a different lens. In conclusion, I believe that Brown is a terrorist, but some might be reluctant to say so because of his progressive views in an era of inequality.
The violent nature of John Brown, a man with deep ties to Christianity and the abolitionist movement seems out of place. Brown’s use of violence and murder to eliminate slavery is ironic in that he violates his belief system to end something, which is against his belief system. The amount of wealthy individuals that would support Brown with his endeavors after years of failure and general lack of results is staggering. His raids seem to be just as fruitful as Nat Turner’s, with the end result of more Blacks being killed and more anti-abolitionist sentiment across the south. Brown’s excessive use of violence, which leads to the loss of civilian lives, in turn, loses him the support of many more moderate abolitionists. Also, the loss of many of Brown’s family in his many conflicts seems to have no effect on him, it seems the destruction of slavery is more important than the destruction of his family.
ReplyDeleteTo say whether John Brown is a hero or a terrorist is truly a matter of interpretation. An abolitionist of the time would most likely consider the brutality of Brown justified by his overarching goal of ending slavery. On the contrary, a citizen of Pottawatomie who has seen Brown’s brutality first hand would probably classify him as a terrorist.
Inarguably, John Brown was devoted to the abolition movement, having spent most of his life and a large amount of money donated by others. However, before all this time and money he allocated, it seems he should have thought more closely about why his rebellion will work whereas Turner’s failed. For years, he seeks funding for his cause with little action, yet he continues to receive more and more from many different wealthy abolitionists. It is astounding that people would invest in someone with continued financial failures as well as nothing to show for his effort. Moreover, with support Brown still ended up with an untrained and small militia.
ReplyDeleteWhen looking back at Brown, his age really goes against the traditional thought of younger generations igniting revolution. At such an old age and so deeply religious, it is surprising that he would lead such violent attacks as the ones he made in Tennessee. On a different note, it is a minor detail but the thought that he believed it was a good idea to arm slaves with pikes to fight soldiers armed with guns seems completely irrational.
As for whether John Brown is a terrorist or a freedom fighting, the saying, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.” Although cliché definitely applies in situations like this, good and bad are all a matter of perspective.
John Brown was a hero to many abolitionists for he took matters into his own hands, and he fought for what he believed was right. The issue of slavery stirred many conflicts before Brown began his crusade. The current line of Presidents during this time were weak, and they catered to slaveholders. This demonstrates the power of the proslavery force. Brown, originally a pacifist, realized that nonviolence would be insufficient to stop the oppressive slave holders. Inspired by the Biblical story of Gideon, Brown took up arms and gained supporters to help to free the oppressed slaves.
ReplyDeleteOne may say Brown was a terrorist, and his actions struck terror into many due to cruel killings. However, the gruesome actions at the Pottawatomie massacre sent a necessary message that the abolitionists would fight back. Brown’s violent methods also helped free slaves at the Missouri Rescue. Violence during this time was not unheard of as slaveholders whipped and brutalized those whom they believed were their personal property. Proslavery men also took up arms when they pillaged Lawrence, Kansas. Are these not acts of terrorism? Brown was just a part of an escalating conflict that would result in the Civil War. Brown was a hero as well as a terrorist.
It is apparent in the first six chapters of Midnight Rising that John Brown has methodical and logical reasoning behind his attempts to spark his crusade, which would certainly rule out any claims of him being insane. I would, however, categorize Brown as a terrorist rather than a hero. Brown's actions up to chapter six all suggest that his main intent was to spark fear in southern slave plantations, causing such disorder that the slaves would rise up against their oppressors. As noble of a plan this may seem, Brown's intent of terrorizing southern slave owners is undeniably the act of a terrorist.
ReplyDeleteChristopher D. brings up an interesting topic when discussing the true role of John Brown in the civil war with, ""One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.”" John Brown does straddle in ever so slight line between freedom fighter (revolutionary) and terrorist. To distinguish between the two is often a matter of opinion guided by the overall actions and outcomes and their effects on society. As we are only allowed to discuss the events up to chapter six in this blog, I believe it would be unfair to coin Brown as a revolutionary, as we as readers are not yet aware of the overall outcome of his actions. For the time being, I believe John Brown's actions and intent are enough to classify him as a terrorist.
A terrorist is defined as someone who uses violence for political gain. The Pottawatomie Massacre proves that john Brown was willing to use violence to bring the issue of slavery into the public’s view. While Brown claimed he was acting out of self-defense, attacking southern sympathizers who threatened and intended to harm the free states, the men he murdered were innocent. Instead of trying to develop a peaceful strategy, perhaps with hostages, Brown murdered five men in cold blood. They were proslavery, yet they were entitled to their opinions just as John Brown was entitled to his. They had been living peacefully, not actively fighting abolitionists, nor did they own any slaves. The killings were later justified by Brown’s son, John Junior, who claimed that the “killing should so terrorize the proslavery camp as to deter future violence” (54). Using violence to prevent violence is a faulty mantra that did not work for Brown, and this twisted defense of the Pottawatomie Massacre is why I view Brown as a terrorist.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I agree with Cassidy in that the Massacre helped to bring the issue of slavery into the light, even if it was in the worst way possible. While the killings did help to make progress for the cause, they brought more fear and anger than they did support. What I am confused about is why Brown, who is portrayed as a deeply religious man who adamantly tried to obliterate sin in himself and others, would commit one of the ultimate sins: murder. Did he truly believe that all southern sympathizers were a threat to his campaign and the free states, and therefore killing them would be an act of self-defense? Or did he simply choose to think himself above sin because he viewed himself as an agent of God and therefore acting on his wishes?
Agreeing with what Ben and many others mentioned above, I do not think that John Brown can be classified as insane or crazy. His extreme devotion and dedication to his cause may sometimes come off as insanity, but in the end he is trying to do an honorable thing by abolishing slavery. He completely devotes his entire life to this cause and makes many sacrifices in order to make this possible. The many months he goes without seeing his family as well as the horrid conditions he often lived in are just some examples of the many sacrifices he made. At one point in the story he mentioned that he was absent for one of his children's entire toddler years. Many have raised the question about whether or not he should be considered a hero or a terrorist. Similar to most things today, there is always two sides to a story. By the slaves whom he was freeing he would most likely be considered a hero, but by the proslavery men whom he was slaughtering he would likely be considered a terrorist. Some may choose to call him a terrorist due to the severe lengths to which he took his violence. He realized that violence must be used but I believe that things definitely got out of hand. At this point it was too late to stop the violence that would follow. At this point in the story it is too early to have a definitive answer to the question of whether or not he is a terrorist, but I think his actions in part two might help us gain a clearer answer.
ReplyDeleteAnother question raised that I found very interesting was when Grace asked whether or not Brown made any progress on his mission in part one. I think it is safe to say that he did. Although it may seem as if he did not get much accomplished, someone needed to get the ball rolling in order for anything to get done in the future. In part two I think we will see that his actions in part one did indicate progress towards the abolishment of slavery.
After reading some of the responses from earlier in the summer, I'd like to add that John Brown was acting out of his religious extremism, not because he thought what he was doing was "right." Sure, it was "right" and his interpretation of the Bible said it was "right" but the point is, he was not thinking for himself, at least not completely. In many of his letters back and forth between him and his family, Brown referenced that God had determined his destiny as an abolitionist of slavery. Granted, this eventually turned into something that he strongly believed in, but only because God made it his duty. This kind of religious extremism happens all the time and all over the world, and generally results in terrorism. John Brown can be considered a full-blown terrorist, but only by looking at one condition. The Pottawatomie Massacre showed off Brown and co.'s ruthlessness when it came to fulfilling their goal, and was the first time we saw Brown as a killer, not just a wanderer searching for money. This instance makes the impression that Brown was indeed a terrorist, nothing but a homicidal maniac with a small following running around Kansas murdering people.
ReplyDeleteHowever, it is not fair to base all reasoning on that one case. Based on his devout obedience to his religion, Brown could also be considered a martyr, as he went to extreme measures to do the deed he was "given". Depending on how somebody views Brown can give two exactly opposite ideas. Sure, he committed terrible crimes, but it is going too far to only consider him as a terrorist or a martyr/hero. That being said, it is hard to put any sort of label on John Brown, because he was not acting out of self-interest, but by what he thought was the will of God.
John Brown was a man who believed that what he was doing was right. His intense Calvinist roots influenced his view about his role as he believed that he was already pre-destined to carry out a campaign against slavery. In Kansas, he became caught up in the frenzy of Bleeding Kansas, and took extreme action to fulfill his goal. A question that came to my mind was how far was he prepared to go to abolish slavery? He obviously did not take into account the immense logistical challenges required for such an endeavor, though he did recruit the "Secret Six" and Frederick Douglas, and took tours through the USA and Canada in hopes of enlistment. However, on other fronts, he was prepared. He had detailed maps, wrote his version of the Declaration of Independence for slaves, and had the munitions necessary to initially sustain his army. I believe that John Brown's biggest impediment was his inability to finish what he started. Throughout his life, he had outstanding debt, and also would move on to the next stage of a plan before completing the necessary prior steps. Realistically, John Brown's crew got lucky that the armory was so lightly guarded. He expected to overrun a federal property, in the heart of a Southern slave state, with just 20 other men. In the end, all that was needed to subdue his threat was a small detachment of Marines under Col. Lee. John Brown had the heart and drive to fulfill his mission, yet he lacked the practicality and logistics necessary to undertake such a fanatic hope.I do not believe that John was crazy, for his actions set into motion a chain of events eventually leading to Fort Sumter. This means that the North eventually realized what this raid did; it finally set slavery against freedom and forced people to pick sides. This was John's goal, and he fulfilled it.
ReplyDeleteI think we can label John Brown as a terrorist. He tries to argue that he is doing the Christian thing and carrying out gods work, and yet he has no qualms about killing innocent, non slave owning settlers in Kansas to further his goals. This type of extremism leads him to neglect and abandon his wife and kids for long periods of time, letting them suffer in an unfinished house through the winter. Brown is so dedicated to abolishing slavery that he often seems inadequately prepared for the challenge of leading his band of men and planning the attack. The only thing that keeps him going is sheer commitment and his strong network of supporters. Brown's trouble managing money and his business troubles further show that he is not a great leader. This may be attributed to mild mental illness or insanity, which we see many hints of in the first section of the book. This illness would also contribute to his fanatical determination to destroy slavery forever at all cost, including killing and deserting his family and those that depend on him.
ReplyDeleteThroughout chapters 1-6 there are many instances where John Brown acts as both a terrorist and a hero. The first few chapters paint the picture of Browns early life, an extremely religious man who has pride in his beliefs about slavery. While some might see these beliefs taken to the extreme later in the book, up until this point there is nothing that can clearly label him as a terrorist. On the flip side of that there are a few examples of terrorist acts that were not meant to be viewed as terrorism. The Pottawatomie Massacre is a clear example as an act of terrorism that Brown not only acts as a part of but also leads. Brown doesn't set out on his escapade looking for people to intentionally harm but rather to reinforce his views on his lifelong journey of ending slavery. Agreeing with Patrick the killings of these settlers is gruesome and unnecessary. The killing of a few settlers doesn't warrant the terrorist label to be placed on him. While the killings of innocent people can be viewed as terrorism, Brown uses these gruesome killings in a cunning way, bringing his slavery battle to the home front. Brown blends his killings into a way that supports his cause, which pays off by sparking more abolitionist debates in the North. Browns actions in chapters 1-6 do not provide an accurate way to assess him as either a terrorist or a hero.
ReplyDeleteBased on the reading thus far, I do not believe that John Brown cannot be classified as a hero or a terrorist. A hero can be defined as a person who is regarded as a model or ideal. While Brown does have a strong sense of right and wrong, it is clear that he certainly is not a model citizen. It is true that Brown displays acts of heroism in striving for abolition, however he rarely accomplishes his goals without resorting to violence. I imagine the eleven black slaves that were rescued by Brown in Missouri and led over a thousand miles to freedom would without doubt view him as hero, but heroic acts like this do not change that fact that John Brown is far from being an ideal person.
ReplyDeleteSimilarly, Brown cannot be considered a terrorist because he is driven by the holy and patriotic cause of abolition. Although the methods he uses to fight slavery are at times questionable to say the least, Brown commits the crimes he does with the goal of righting a wrong. I am sure that the families of the victims killed by Brown in the Pottawatomie Massacre would consider him to be a terrorist, but Brown simply met violence in Kansas with violence as he saw necessary. That doesn't mean that this was the right thing to do, but John Brown killed for a purpose, not out of anger or hatred, and that does not make him a terrorist.
I would say that John Brown is a hero. It is clear that Brown is strongly religious and uses his faith to justify his actions, but that does not make him insane. He could easily go too far and become insane, but we just don’t see that yet. Will he take it too far? He has had so many setbacks and has suffered so much, and that would make anyone go at least a little crazy. However, as of right now, Brown is not insane and he is not a terrorist. Yes, he killed people during the Pottawatomie Massacre, but he hasn’t done anything to make him comparable to a terrorist. I’m not saying he should have killed those people or that it wasn’t a bad thing, it was, I’m just saying that he hasn’t gone to the very extreme yet.
ReplyDeleteFor now, Brown is a hero. He is working towards a cause that he hopes will benefit people. He has given up his entire life, including his source of income and family life, to pursue a goal that he feels God has called upon him to do. Like it said in the prologue, people were strongly against slavery but no one was doing anything to stop it. John Brown was the one person who decided to do something.
Based on the reading so far, John Brown is a powerful abolitionist who will do whatever it takes to accomplish his main goal of setting all slaves free. John Brown is an extremely religious figure, and uses his religion to support what he is doing. Despite the fact that John Brown is trying to free all slaves, he is still a controversial figure. The methods by which Brown attempts to attain his goal are sometimes inhumane and cruel. The most noteworthy example of John Brown's controversial methods, is the Pottawatomie massacre in which Brown and his men slaughtered five proslavery men in the middle of the night. This also brings up the question whether or not John Brown is a hero. To me, Brown should be cosiderd a hero. Brown is a hero because of his overall determination to do what is right. He choses to look at the bigger picture and does what it takes in the short term to make a more free U.S. in the future. In order for the U.S. to finnaly stop slavery somebody would have had to get the ball rolling and do the dirty work that needed to be done in order for the rest of the country to make a stand as well. This unfortunately was John Brown's job and he did what needed to be done.
ReplyDeleteJohn Brown's devotion to the abolitionist cause originally stemmed from his upbringing in early America. It was there, with his father, that he developed a need to free his “fellow-men who are in bondage.” (24) His loyalty to the cause was apparent, and it was this loyalty that made Brown the interesting person that he was. I believe that it was a mix of that upbringing (which included him bonding with Native Americans along with slaves) and his religion that made him become the person he was. The religion, I think, played a bigger part in his approach to freeing the slaves. Brown had compared himself to Gideon from the Bible and believed that with a small band of followers, which he had gathered, he could destroy slavery. I agree with Griffin in finding Brown’s progression from pacifist-Quaker abolitionist to extremely radical abolitionist interesting. In his early writings, Brown had the idea of educating slaves to free their minds thus encouraging their owners to emancipate them and he even said in a letter to his brother, Frederick, in 1834 that “perhaps we might, under God, in that way do more towards breaking their yoke effectually than in any other.” (24) He originally had a pacifistic approach to his cause and had no use for violence in his plan. However after years of idle work in North Elba not promoting his plan but instead educating already freed slaves in such trades as farming, surveying and livestock raising, Brown found a new calling Kansas. It was there, fighting pro-slavery insurgents that Brown found his God-given destiny and gathered his own small band of followers to attack pro-slavery areas (like Pottawatomie) and become the Gideon-like figure of the pre-Civil War era.
ReplyDeleteWhat I couldn't understand though was why Brown gave up on the idea of educating the slaves and instead resorted to acts of violence. By using violence as a means to free the slaves, Brown made himself appear as a radical, instead of painting plantation owners in that light. I can understand that violence is a much faster, and presumably more efficient, way of achieving the goal you are striving towards (be it peace or emancipating the slaves) but Brown had already seen the results of violence being used in the South. Three years prior to his letter to Frederick, Nat Turner had been executed for his work inciting the slave rebellion which was entirely focused on murdering plantation owners and their innocent families. So Brown knew that violence would not help him accomplish his goal, yet he proceeded anyway. Why did he not make more of an effort in his plan to educate the slaves? It could be that had become a fanatic to the story of Gideon and saw it as a proven method to freeing a people, so he decided that that was his best course of action. He was a fanatic and a man on a mission, but I doubt he was crazy. After reading Part I, he seemed to me to be very in touch with what he was doing and like knew the majority of his plan (although he rarely commented on it). Brown was a man on a mission and whether he was a hero to some and a terrorist to others did not matter because he had his sights set on freeing the slaves of the South, and he planned to do it at any cost and with whatever means necessary.
After reading through this first section of Midnight Rising and looking through some of the above comments, I can say that it is too early to tell exactly who John Brown is. I feel a lot of sympathy for Brown and his early life. He had many losses, including the deaths of many of his children at a young age and his mother's death during childbirth. His fight against slavery was the one thing that kept him going. He even expressed at one point of “having a steady, strong desire: to die...certainly the cause is enough to live for." (28) This cause, of course, was abolitionism.
ReplyDeleteBrown was raised by a passionate and avidly Calvinist family and these fervent beliefs were naturally transferred over to him. The many crimes Brown commits, from the Missouri raid to the gruesome Pottawatomie massacre, he justifies by stating he wields the sword of God, or he is acting under God's wishes. Though I do not believe Brown is insane, I do believe he is a fanatic and his religion drove his devotion to this cause. One key detail remains, however: Brown's father was a pacifist and Calvinists denounce all forms of violence. Brown however, as it was particularly noted by author, would adhere to violent behavior if the time and situation called for it. This small detail is what leads me to believe that John Brown is attempting to do heroic deeds, and is regarding every course of action to further his cause as a justification for violence. John Brown seems to be a hero who is fighting like a terrorist, but I think only the raid on Harper's Ferry and the aftermath of it will help to narrow down who exactly this man is.
I have not decided whether I believe John Brown to be a hero or a terrorist. It is clear that John Brown is intensely devoted to the abolitionist cause. Due to his intense devotion, his actions can be argued as heroic. This is because he has not only put all of his energy into fighting for this cause, but he has also risked his own life and his family’s to help enslaved people in need. John Brown also had heroic intentions when it came to inviting others to join him in his fight for the freedom of slaves. Like Cassidy mentioned earlier, Brown’s ultimate goal was honorable because he was fighting for the freedom of other humans. Therefore, I find it difficult to deny him of a heroic title. On the other hand, many of his actions I feel are too closely related and fall under the category of terrorism.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Hana’s point that discusses how he viewed slavery as a sin, (because of his faith) which let his hatred of proslavery people override his primary and original goal: to abolish slavery. Therefore, John Brown turned to violence against those people. These violent actions of John Brown could categorize him as a terrorist. A potential example of an act of terrorism is the vicious Pottawatomie Massacre. This is because by brutally murdering people who supported slavery, he used terror to inflict awareness of the abolition of slavery. As many others have stated, it is difficult to label John Brown as either a hero or a terrorist.
As many have posted, I think it is too early to classify John Brown a hero or a terrorist after reading part one. Brown only has the best intentions in mind as he plans to abolish slavery and repeatedly reminds his men to avoid bloodshed. On the other hand, his planned attack on Harper's Ferry can surely not be completed without any bloodshed and Brown must have known this, even if he did not support it. Although there are reasons to label John Brown a terrorist, I view him as more of a hero. Brown was determined to abolish slavery and felt that it was his God given duty to do so. He put the mission before himself and his family which show his selfless traits that are present in many heroes. Something previously mentioned was that his eventual downfall was his extreme religious beliefs. In my opinion, there is a good side and a bad side to Brown's everlasting dedication to his religion. On one hand, thanks to his strong determination, Brown will not let anything get in the way of him and his plan. On the contrary, Brown's devotion may become aggressive and cause him to lose sight of his true goal by taking it out on the proslavery people rather than focusing on freeing the slaves. Even though Brown's attack included multiple murders, he is devoted to his cause and will stop at nothing until he fulfills his duty.
ReplyDeleteEven though his actions may suggest otherwise, I believe John Brown is a hero, rather than a terrorist. Brown does not think of himself as “a soldier of God”, as some have pointed out, but rather, a soldier of his own abolitionist beliefs. No matter what his upbringing was like, I believe religion was just an excuse to further justify his actions and make his own beliefs appeal to the slightly more religious people of the 1800s. His unwavering belief in his cause is but one heroic quality.
ReplyDeleteMost of my peers seem to be leaning more towards “terrorist” rather than “hero”, which is understandable, because some of Brown’s actions are a bit questionable, particularly the murders. However, in any war, this one being the war against slavery, losses and sacrifices are inevitable. If all who have committed murder are classified as terrorists rather than heroes, then I’m fairly certain there would be few “heroes” left, not to mention that John Brown had his reasons for the killings. John Brown’s perseverance, ruthlessness (or one might say selflessness), and perhaps even the touch of insanity, are common traits of a terrorist. But in the case of this person and this cause, these are traits of a hero.
John Brown was clearly devoted to abolishing slavery. His devotion to the cause stemmed from his faith in god, and his belief that all men are equal. He believed god had given him a sole purpose in life, to end slavery, therefore he did everything he could to fulfill this destiny. John Brown was selfless in that he was willing to risk his own life to help free the slaves. He worked hard to spread his ideas and intentions, in order to gain followers and help the movement. Although his intentions were good, Brown’s rationality was clouded by his desire to succeed. John Brown became ruthless in his quest to abolish slavery. He sought to overcome the proslavery southerners by terrorizing them. He viewed violence and brutality as the quickest most efficient way to succeed, and therefore had no interest in trying to solve the problem peacefully. To draw attention to the cause Brown lead the Pottawatomie Massacre slaughtering five men because they were proslavery. John Brown struggled with financial decisions, jeopardizing both his and his family’s well being. Brown’s unjust actions and poor decisions threatened the lives of all those related to him. He viewed slavery as sin, and therefore despised it. Brown’ s own actions to conquer slavery were sins themselves. However, as Cashel said, he deemed these sins as “ excusable” because he was so biased in his views.
ReplyDeleteThe opening chapters of Horwitz’ Midnight Rising make a strong case to the reader that John Brown is, in fact, insane. By modern standards Brown’s actions clearly indicate him to be a terrorist, his religious fanaticism, radical views, and conviction a trio of vindicating traits. However, one must keep in mind, Brown’s doings do not occur in modern society, but rather during the time of the greatest hostility our nation has ever seen. As Horwitz mentions, it was not uncommon for proslavery posses to commit deeds equally horrific, nor were the efforts of peaceful antislavery campaigns taking affect. In this situation, the vehement Brown sought the only option left for him to take: fighting fire with fire and retaliating with force. Is it true two wrongs don’t make a right? Possibly, but as a “man of action”, Brown realized it was time to fight back (76). In my opinion, Brown’s courage to stand up for what he knew to be right was not an act of terror, instead he was battling the source of true terror in the United States: slavery.
ReplyDeleteBrown was not a terrorist, yet evidence from the early chapters seems to point to insanity. Considering Brown objectively however, particularly refraining from allowing modern views to cloud judgment, shows otherwise. If considering Brown to be insane, shouldn’t his proslavery Southern counterparts receive the same label? Suddenly a large portion of nineteenth century America becomes “insane”. Late in the first section Brown even defies claims of insanity as he meticulously prepares, devising a devious plan for a second strike. I cannot give Brown a moral pass for the atrocities he committed in his merciless slayings, but I defend his actions against the titles of terrorism or insanity seeing as he fought against acts of similar nature. Thus far, John Brown is simply a man of great courage and little hesitancy.
Throughout the first part of the book, John Brown seems to be both a terrorist and a hero, but he does not seem insane. He is vehemently committed to his cause and to God, but this does not point to insanity. His actions are similar to those of others of the time period, and while his goal in attacking Harper's Ferry is highly unrealistic, his actions are, at least, well thought out. In terms of terrorism, the brutal murders he committed in Kansas were certainly acts of terrorism. Also, the planned raid on Harper's Ferry can also be viewed as a terrorist act. However, this does not mean that he is not a hero. While the murders he committed are hugely reprehensible, his aim was to aim slavery. Also, his raid into Mississippi, resulting in the freeing of several slaves was the act of a hero. His goal in raiding Harper's Ferry also was a heroic, aiming to eventually end slavery. Thus Brown is both a terrorist and a hero, committing terrible atrocities, but battling against the worst atrocity of all, slavery.
ReplyDeleteOnes upbringing helps to shape what their later endeavors in life will entail. Brown, born to an old Yankee stock and named for a grandfather who died in the Revolutionary war, suffered many losses as a child. Some of Brown’s earliest memories include sin, chastisement, and dislocation. Trauma at such a young age can often impact someone permanently, in Brown’s case, the death of his mother and his father’s devotion to hard work and strict piety, have shaped him to have a certain drive and confidence. With his strong Calvanist roots, Brown wanted to do right for the sake of his family, almost as though he was carrying out certain acts to make his parents proud and to uphold the family name.
ReplyDeleteThere is no doubt that Brown was devoted to abolishing slavery but his acts of violence, particularly the Pottawatomie Massacre, make if difficult for me to conclude whether his deeds were acts of terrorism or if his cause was enough to be considered heroic.
Through the early chapters of Horowitz' Midnight Rising, it is clear that brown is completely devoted to abolishing slavery. It is also clear that this belief is a product of his strong religious beliefs. Brown is born and raised a Christian boy and from an early age, religion takes a prominent role in his life. It is also notable that Brown's first memory is one of being whipped for an entire day. From this it is not difficult to determine where his violent streak comes from. Brown also suffered great trauma in his early years losing his mother at a very young age. However, his difficult childhood does not excuse his character as an adult from examination.
ReplyDeleteBrown fights for an honorable cause, but he allows the cause to consume him. Brown is motivated to become an abolitionist by his Calvinist beliefs, however, as he grows deeper and deeper into his quest to end slavery, he uses the Bible as an excuse for his actions. Brown seems to believe he is morally superior to the general population. He feigns humility, but it is quite clear that Brown believes himself to be chosen by God. This is evidenced by his fascination with Gideon, the archetypical hero from the Old Testament. I do not know yet if Brown is a terrorist or a hero or even insane, but he is certainly dangerous, as the Potowommie massacre makes clear.
I believe that the first six chapters of Anthony Horowitz’s, Midnight Rising, give enough evidence to support the opinion that John Brown is indeed a terrorist. Although no one can take away from Brown’s passion and heroic intentions, his methods to end slavery are inhumane, disturbing and more or less, insane. Brown’s cause is a noble one. I think it is fair to say that most people on this blog would agree that slavery is immoral. I, too, completely agree with Brown that slavery is wrong and I support those who stand behind this belief and try within their power to rid the world of it, but I cannot support one who uses violence as a justification to combat this form of evil. How can one justify the means to an end when one has resorted to violence and has not exhausted every possible non violent solution? To me, when one resorts to violence, it means they have given up and are not strong enough or passionate enough to complete their cause. To me when someone, like Brown, compromises their own beliefs, religious or not, and finds ways to justify their actions is someone who has lost their moral standing and is no longer beneficial to the cause.
ReplyDeleteFrom my perspective, the Pottawatomie affair is no different than the destruction of the former Twin Towers. They are both acts of guerrilla warfare and tactics. They are acts made to create a disproportionate disruption through limited means and resources. It could be argued that a terrorist is a person who chooses to use violence and tactics of intimidation to move forward his or her singular and fundamental position or philosophy. For Brown, it was equality of human rights and his deep hatred of slavery. Brown’s inability to speak convincingly well in a public and attract masses and manage himself financially may also be reasons why he resorted to small, reckless, and bloody actions. Brown’s reasoning for his actions is also no different from that of a Muslim extremist. Brought up as a Calvinist, Brown believed in a very literal translation of the Bible and that God had made him the Gideon of his time. A martyr in many cases. A Muslim extremist or zealot who translates the Quran very literally could make the same argument and say his or her actions are made in the name of Allah. In America, we believe that slavery is bad and therefore Brown would seem to be on the side of good and justice. For these reasons, I’m sure many would support and praise Brown for his performance, but I do not believe we can truly condone his violent actions when he took the lives of his fellow citizens in the name of something that is for a good cause. When morals are compromised, true meaning and good intentions are forever lost.
As many others have previously stated, I believe it to be incredibly difficult, even impossible to decide wether Brown was a hero or a terrorist. Although personally I would not have agreed with many of the actions Brown felt necessary to take in order to ensure the abolition of slavery, I do respect him for doing what he felt was necessary and right at the time. The cause of Brown's devotion to abolitionism is evidently due to his strict religious up-bringing. As Chris said, Brown's early childhood beatings show why Brown felt the need to go to such extreme measures, such as killing the Kansas slave owners, to purge others of their wrong doing through violent acts.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I do not condone Brown's brutal acts of violence in Kansas, I understand the influence his childhood had on him. At this point in the book I believe it to be too difficult to label Brown as either a hero or a terrorist because a single question still goes unanswered; how successful is he in the freeing of slaves?
As of now I agree with Alexa and believe that John Brown is a hero. Brown has all the qualities of a hero. He is caring, dedicated, and has a just cause. From the first few chapters Brown is shown as someone who feels strongly about the lives of others. Although later Brown may become a killer, at the beginning of Midnight Rising we find out that he repeatedly goes into periods of mourning after the loss of animals and his mother. He is totally devoted to his cause. He loses his home to go to North Elba and Kanas, his sons to the battlefield, and a relationship with his children and wives who remain behind. Brown also has an important cause that was justified by his strict religious beliefs. He truly believes that God sent him for the purpose of freeing the slaves like Moses whose duty was to free the oppressed in Egypt. Browns intentions were pure—at least at the start. Brown fought for freedom and what he believed in. Our whole lives we are all told that we can make a difference in the world and that we should fight for what we think is right. Brown actually had the courage to try and for that he should be commended not punished!
ReplyDeleteAs of this point in the text, it is fairly clear to me that John Brown is a terrorist. In modern times, one of the main goals of any terrorist is to not only create fear and unrest, but to do so on such a scale that it is impossible to ignore, thus "furthering" their cause (World Trade Center, Boston Marathon). I find Brown's attacks in Kansas in Missouri to be in this vein of terrorist activity, mostly because Brown made certain that his actions would be in the national spotlight, exemplified by the letter Brown wrote to the New York Tribune after his attack in Missouri mocking the pro-slavery community.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, John Brown shows the religious fanaticism commonly found with terrorists today. After being raised in a highly Calvinist environment, I believe Brown was completely indoctrinated in the religious beliefs of his upbringing. This religious fervor in my opinion made him conceited to a fault, believing that his way was always the just and right way, undoubtedly causing the numerous failures of Brown's business endeavors. As well, Brown's terrorist-like fanaticism can be compared to a modern day Jihadist. Believing he was the next Gideon, Brown was lead to violence to do the Lord's work, just as a Jihadist resorts to violence to defend the Islamic faith.
Although it is only the first third of the book, I am fairly convinced that my opinion of Brown as a terrorist will only be further confirmed as I continue reading.
Despite the thorough background of John Brown's life in Part 1, I was yet to identify his character as either a heroic, terroristic or insane at the end of the section. It was only after deep consideration of exactly what each characteristic meant that was able to conclude he was all of the above.
ReplyDeleteJohn Brown is without a doubt the definition of a bourgeois hero. Despite a modest upbringing, Brown rises to fight for those who cannot fight for themselves. He spends the entity of his life fighting for what he believes is right. His belief in freedom for all despite race is heroically advanced. He continually fights to save slaves from there oppressors and never falters.
Terrorism is characterized as the use of violence to provoke fear. Modernly a religious drive has also been associated with terrorism. Brown's tendency towards violence was first prevalent in his pro- corporal punishment view. Throughout the rest of this section he continued to intensify his use of force to achieve his goals. Brown is also driven by his Calvinist Christian views which inspire him to fight for the equality of races.
As I read this first part of Brown's story I continually tried to convince myself he was entirely sane. John Brown knew exactly the intensity and severity of his actions. He even foresaw a "bleeding Kansas". I convinced myself that one cannot be insane if they understand their own actions. However by the end of this reading I had found it was quite the opposite. Whether Brown was forming the Secret Six or convincing his family of his case, he was entirely aware of his actions. It is because of his deep understanding that he is so insane. He realizes the horrors and the tragedy however he thrives off it. He loves the pain of others, and for that reason he is certifiably insane.
Further reading is necessary to solidify my label for Brown or potentially convert it to a better suited one.
John Brown shows an undeniable drive to act, and act fast on his abolitionist beliefs. His mistake is that he gets lost in his beliefs, to an extent where it causes him to kill. I would not say he is crazy by any means, instead he is a man that puts God and his ideologies in front of his own life. Most men who fall into this category tend to execute the radical and go beyond what others would deem necessary. That is why it is so easy to call Brown a terrorist. He is easily characterized as someone with radical beliefs that will kill to fulfill them. Yet I wouldn’t call him a terrorist because his cause couldn’t be a more pure one. He is fighting for the freedom of millions of people not over which God someone believes in.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Brooks in that I do not believe that John Brown should be considered a terrorist, based on the fact that he was fighting to free enslaved people. We as modern Americans pride ourselves because of the laws we have against racial discrimination. I believe that we would not have progressed this far if it was not for the acts of John Brown, and to answer Katie's question: I believe that John Brown was successful in freeing slaves, due to the fact that his actions led to events that ended slavery on a massive scale.
ReplyDeleteLooking back at what people have posted earlier in the summer, most use the acts in Kansas as leading examples as to why John Brown should be considered a terrorist. When I first read the chapter in the book dedicated to this event, I saw the killings as an act of terror as well, mostly based on the letters John Junior wrote defending his father. He said that those sentenced to die must be slain "in such a manner as to likely cause a restraining fear" (54). This seemed to me to be unmistakably an act of terror. But, when rereading the chapter I realized that this was never mentioned by any man who was actually on the mission. Solomon, another one of John's sons, who was on the mission, said that the act was a strike "merely to begin the fight that we saw was being forced upon us" (55). This illustrates that the act in Kansas was something that was undergone to catalyze the conflict that was inevitably coming (the conflict that would eventually put an end to slavery in the United States), but taking too long to start, and not something that was intensionally done to strike fear.
After reading the first part of the novel, I was undecided as to whether I would classify Brown as a hero or a terrorist. In my opinion, he has qualities of both. Brown's practical religious beliefs, tenderness with animals, love for his wife and children, and desire to free his "fellow-men" in bondage struck me as admirable. He is motivated to do good for an unselfish cause. Unlike some abolitionists who do not condone slavery but do nothing to stop it, Brown wants to take action. It is clear to me he truly believes slavery to be immoral, a surprising view for a man of the time period. Even the Founding Fathers, claiming all men are created equal, used euphemisms to allow for the continuity of this practice in a country whose ideals are universal freedom and liberty. Brown's view is progressive for his time. Slavery was considered a norm in the mid-nineteenth century and Brown took it upon himself to bring change, certainly a very heroic thing to do.
ReplyDeleteHowever, Brown's motives could also be viewed as terrorist. He plans to use violence to intimidate and coerce others, and is committing treason against the government. Brown is aware what he intends to do will certainly result in a loss of lives and much bloodshed. Brown's devout passion for what he believes in is clear. I am interested to see whether his passion will result in accomplishment or downfall on his part. Right now, I am still undecided as to whether Brown is a hero or terrorist.