Midnight Rising, Part II, Chapters 7-9: Into Africa
Comment on any aspect of Chapters 7-9. 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.
I thought that this part's emphasis on honor and expectations was particularly striking. It sort of focused on honor the same way that the first part focused on religion, meaning that it contrasted Brown's opinions with those around him and applied those opinions to his actions. I speak, of course, not only of his surprise when he was betrayed, deserted, and abandoned, but also of the peculiar behavior of his hostages. I wonder if the kind of bravery and decency that Brua expressed could be found today, and if it would really be specific to the South, as implied by the author.
Speaking of religion, other than some minor mentions of the differences between Brown's fervent Calvinism and the ecstaticism favored amongst his men and of his use of biblical references, this book doesn't really go into how religion affected Brown's relations with his soldiers. Did he curb his punitive Calvinist impulses while his soldiers were seeking female entertainment? Did the religious debates they enjoyed contribute to friction? (I can't seem to immediately find another source that answers these questions. Does anyone else know?)
In response to Althea’s questions, I agree the section fails to provide any hard evidence leading to an answer. However, I believe Brown’s devotion to his religion helped him greatly in his efforts to compose a group with strong unity and dedication. While Brown’s men did not share his religious fanaticism, I think Brown’s religiousness proved his ability to completely devote himself to a cause. Rather than creating friction, it seems Brown’s men drew hope from their leader as he remained so composed and optimistic, a result of his belief in the righteousness of his actions. This appears a valid explanation for several men leaving behind everything they knew and staying in a crowded farmhouse in order to take part in a mission shrouded in mystery. While the effects of Brown’s religion are not clearly evident on his men, it is obvious Brown’s devotion to the abolitionist cause is deeply rooted in his devotion to God. This leads me to wonder why Brown finds a message to fight slavery, while similarly religious Southerners continue to harshly practice such atrocities. Also, I am interested to see if Brown claims that he is “an instrument of God” convinces the Southerners to reduce the severity of his sentence. Furthermore, I wonder if there will be any sign of an primitive insanity defense, although I doubt Brown would allow it considering his pride in the cause.
Part II clearly dives into the character of Brown in order for the reader to see how seriously devoted he is to the cause he has been serving for a huge portion of his life. As mentioned in my earlier comment, I was unsure whether or not to call Brown a terrorist or a hero, but have concluded he is most definitely (in my mind) not a terrorist. Part II repeatedly has Brown explaining his cause to others, making it known he did not want to initially harm anyone unless met with resistance. He also explains to the townspeople that they are not the enemy; he has simply come to free slaves, not terrorize innocent people.
In response to Althea's question, it seems as though Brown wanted to unite his men solely under the cause they were fighting for. Although Brown's Calvinist instincts provoked him to defeat slavery, I believe Brown kept a simple, unified purpose to band together his men. It seems like Brown believes this method will devote all focus to their movement. This does make me wonder whether or not the group would be stronger if more focus was shifted towards a powerful, religious purpose alongside the idea of fighting slavery. Thoughts?
Brown's character in Part II was eccentric and unpredictable, and I was intrigued by the surprises that he offered. One example, as Jennie and Althea have mentioned, is the chivalry, respect and honor that he showed to everyone during his short-lived raid on Harpers Ferry. I think that this discredits the terrorist theory because terrorists are often thought of as heartless and irrational people, while Brown proved to be just the opposite. Although Brown willingly articulates the reasons for his actions to anyone who will listen, I do think it's a bit odd that he claimed that he didn't intend to make enemies of the townspeople in the process of freeing slaves. The people of Harpers Ferry would not be willing to simply let their slaves go, and it's unlikely that John Brown would have overlooked this in his extensive planning for the attack. He must have expected some collateral damage on innocent citizens, which I believe gives a little more truth to, but does not vindicate, the terrorist theory.
I think Jennie is completely right about Brown's belief in the simple unity of the group based on the idea of freeing slaves, regardless of the cause for this belief. However, a common cause like Brown's fierce Calvinism may have produced an even more devoted and tightly knit bunch of abolitionists. Many who lacked Brown's passion abandoned their ostentatious display of loyalty and deserted him when they were needed most. But in the end, do you think Brown and his men would have succeeded anyway, even with that level of unity?
To answer your question, Hillman, it is of my opinion that the attack on Harper's Ferry was doomed regardless of whether or not the group of insurgents was tightly knit or not, for two reasons. One, the sheer numbers quickly come into play when one looks at the attack on Harper's Ferry. No matter how motivated, the plans of a group of eighteen men will most likely be thwarted when they are fighting a town of armed and angry citizens, not to mention a group of ninety highly skilled and experienced United States Marines. Secondly, the attack on Harper's Ferry was doomed from the start due to the ineffective tactics of John Brown. Originally, I thought Brown's purpose for raiding the armory at Harper's Ferry was to have access to the arsenal of guns located at the armory. However, Brown hardly makes the most of what could have been a tactical advantage, and instead sets up shop in the engine house of the armory, which is highly exposed to gunfire. As well, if the next step in Brown's plan was to shepherd the newly freed slaves to the mountains, why would Brown neglect to set up any forts or settlements in the mountains from which to launch further raids? Brown's strategy and daring may have proved to be enough in Kansas, but when attacking a national armory, Brown's planning thoroughly falls flat. As an interesting side note, I found it chilling that a freed black man was the first to die in the raid. Not only is this ironic when one looks at the goal of the raid, but also historically can be compared to what many consider the first death in the American Revolution, which was the death of Crispus Atticus, another freed black man.
In response to your question, Jennie, I think that it is difficult to determine whether or not having a more powerful religious message would have helped Brown’s cause. Brown’s main motivation was fairly religious already, however, his tendency to lean towards violence instead of peace turned some Americans against him. Had he stayed true to his Calvinist principles and not used violence at all, he may have been more successful. In the end, I think it probably wouldn’t have mattered much because most people who practiced slavery would continue to believe in it, and those who were abolitionists would continue to fight it.
I was surprised to learn that Brown’s view of abolition was much different from the majority of other white abolitionists. He wanted slaves to take part in their own liberation, while most others believed that slaves were too weak and docile to fight for their rights. Brown shows a great deal of understanding of racial equality through this belief. I certainly feel that Brown’s view on slavery was heroic, especially because few fully agreed with him during that time period. While his cause was good, I still view Brown as a terrorist because of his actions.
In this Part and well as the first, I got the feeling that everyone John Brown explains his intentions to isn't sure how to take him, including his own men. I thought these were most evident when Brown and Frederick Douglass and Brown and the townspeople of Harper's Ferry are conversing. Brown's plan is exceedingly far fetched and I think Douglass is skeptical, how much so I'm not completely certain as I may be interjecting my own opinion into the situation. As for the townspeople and his men, I think they are baffled by Brown's insistence of non-violence due to the fact that he holds Harper's Ferry and the armory with thousands of weapons. Brown also makes several questionable decision that I certainly believe made the townspeople uneasy, i.e. sending the train onward and his negotiation attempts.
Throughout Part II, it becomes evident John Brown did not wish to hurt anyone unless they posed a problem for him and his mission. It is difficult to believe, however, Brown thought he would face no resistance seizing Harpers Ferry, taking as hostages many prominent Southerners, and attempting to arm slaves. However, it also disproves Brown having terroristic intentions in Harpers Ferry. He did not seek to terrorize Southerners for their proslavery beliefs in Harpers Ferry, although he had done just that in the past at the Pottawatomie Massacre. Therefore, it is difficult to fully label him as a terrorist or not.
He was quite heroic, however, in maintaining his composure as he lay wounded and as the plan he had spent much of his life on was destroyed in mere minutes. As his captors and the townspeople demanded answers, Brown calmly and thoroughly explained his motives and intentions, as he did throughout his almost completely pre-determined trial. It is difficult to not have respect for the way Brown faced the consequences of his actions, especially after being humiliated by his enemies and even his own men.
After finishing up Part II, I have concluded John Brown is the furthest thing from a terrorist. Although he showed his moments of weakness and poor judgement throughout Part I, the actions taken in the actual seizing of Harper's Ferry only justify his noble and heroic character. Before and during the battle, Brown continuously emphasized the importance of not harming anyone unless it was deemed necessary. As Jennie talked about in her post, Brown's sole mission was the freeing of slaves located in Harper's Ferry. He did not have any subliminal plans or motives, nothing that would distract him from potentially obtaining his ultimate goal. At the end of Part II, when Brown was captured, he still expressed his views with dignity and composure. Although many of his men proved to be disloyal, and this lifelong awaited battle was over in a few minutes, Brown still adhered to the cause he was fighting for. I agree with Madison on the grounds that Brown deserves the utmost respect for accepting his fate and consequences and abiding by what he believes in.
In Part II, the reader sees John Brown take the role of a leader. Harper's Ferry was Brown's first stop in his mission to rid America of slavery. Although he could not fulfill his dream, he certainly made his mark on America. Brown showed many heroic qualities and emphasized that he did not want to hurt anyone unless it was absolutely necessary. I found this surprising, considering the ruthlessness and drive that he showed while killing the proslavery Americans in Part I. Even though many of his men proved to be disloyal, Brown did not give up until he was taken by force. Even after he was taken, he never abandoned his belief of antislavery, as Madison and Lindsey stated. He stuck by his wounded and dead men until the very end and never gave up. During some parts of the battle the reader might have wondered if Brown was making any progress, but I believe that he did. John Brown's strategy was unorganized and chaotic, but he surprised the townspeople of Harper's Ferry because they did not think he was capable of the damage he caused. That said, I am still unsure as to label him a hero or terrorist. He helped slaves and had a heroic cause, but during some parts he killed other Americans, which is unnecessary and could be seen as terroristic. I am eager to find out John Brown's fate and to see how America reacts to him and the battle at Harper's Ferry.
After finishing part II, I agree with Lindsey that John Brown is clearly not a terrorist. Brown makes his intensions clear: he does not want to harm anyone unless met with opposition. But as Madison said, it is hard to believe that Brown thought he could come into Harpers Ferry with no resistance. The proslavery Southerners were not going to give up their slaves without a fight, and Brown must have realized this, but chose to overlook the fact. Even in the act of taking hostages, Brown tried to treat them as best as he could, this, in my mind, prevents him from being labeled a terrorist. However I would not go as far as calling him a hero.
John Brown was fiercely devoted to his cause, but most of his followers, even though willing to fight, did not share the same tenacity that Brown displayed. Brown defended his actions and respectfully shared his intentions with his capturers and anyone else that would listen. Some of his men however, as soon as they thought they were going to be captured tried to surrender only to be caught fighting on Brown’s side soon after. To answer Hillman’s question even though some of Brown’s men proved to be disloyal, I do not believe that that heavily influenced the outcome of Harpers Ferry. Brown’s men might have been able to fight a little long if more men had been loyal till the end and they could have been more organized in the attack, but eventually the fight would have ended in the same place: the capture of John Brown. In Browns extensive planning, I believe he knew exactly how he wanted to go about the attack and nobody was going to stop him or interfere in any way.
After reading part II, like many others, I have decided John Brown is a hero. Brown tried to spread his beliefs with as little bloodshed as possible. He told his men only to commit a violent act if it was completely necessary; his plans at Harper's Ferry did not go as expected and violence became the only option. Although I see Brown as a hero, I also see his faults. Brown cared more about his cause than any of the people helping him spread it. He most likely knew the majority of his men,including his sons, would not survive Harper's Ferry but he led them to their deaths anyway. Also, Brown put the slaves of the hostages at risk. They had no warning before Brown gave them weapons which immediately made them the enemies of the hostages and townspeople. Although this is true, when some of his men were surrendering Brown did not try to stop them.
The major reason I felt pity for John Brown and his men in Part II was because of the way the townspeople acted towards them. The people spat in the face of Brown's dying men and even went as far as cutting off "gruesome souvenirs" of the corpses. Although the people were understandably in panic, this was not the right thing to do. They blamed Brown for the death of their people even though they killed his people as well and rejected his peace offerings twice. Sinn said he found the town in a sate of "drunken mayhem" which was not the safest or most effective way of dealing with Brown and his men.
After reading part II, I see Brown as the farthest thing from a terrorist. He didn't enter Harper's Ferry with the intention of killing innocent civilians. In fact, Brown had come to Harper's Ferry solely to "free slaves and intended to hurt no one, unless met with resistance." Like Madison and Laura have said, I fail to see how Brown expected the people of Harper's Ferry to sit in silence while their slaves are forcibly seized from them. If Brown was truly a terrorist, he would have marched into Harper's Ferry and murdered each individual he set eyes on. Brown was a hero who fought until the end, encouraging his men to do the same under heavy gunfire. I was amazed with Brown's audacity in the final moments before his capture. He could have easily killed himself before being captured to avoid the consequences, but he did no such thing.
Brown displayed total composure while the country demanded answers for his attack. With the gallows staring him full in the face, "no sign of weakness was exhibited." Brown used this time of constant interrogation to his advantage, making his motives understood by all. Brown, a man with so much to say about the wrongdoings of slavery, finally had an audience to hear him.
Part II had many interesting moments and details regarding the planning and execution of John Brown’s plan at Harper’s Ferry. Brown’s extreme devotion to his cause is evident even up to the moment he is captured. He was a ruthless leader, demanding that his men always act in a proper manner and uphold the highest view of respect in the public’s eyes. This is extremely hard to do however, when slave owners are suddenly having their slaves taken from them. When regarding his role as a terrorist or hero, it is now clear that he was not a full-on terrorist, neither a hero. He was just a man trying to make a difference, and his efforts proved to be beneficial in the beginning, and then turned to acts of violence. Brown’s main goal, “was to free the slaves—not to make war on the people”. This plan was to free slaves without using violence and was not necessarily counting on the resistance of the people. As others have stated, I find it difficult to believe that slave owners would simply stand aside while Brown freed their slaves. Brown had to have known that his plan had a strong possibility of a negative result. I agree with Griffin in that Brown showed extreme nerve as the nation demanded answers for what had occurred. Even after Harper’s Ferry he stood by his actions as an attempt to free people from the horrific life of slavery.
After reading part II, I'm left with mixed emotions. While I do genuinely respect and appreciate Browns unflinching determination and valiant efforts, I still do not feel that his means were morally justifiable. In fact, I found Brown and his troop's mission rather selfish. Families were torn apart by this battle, children were left without their fathers, and wives without their husbands. It seems unfair to place such a heavy burden on families during an extremely difficult time economically and socially. While this statement neglects the cause of the battle itself, for such religious people, I would never imagine anything could outweigh family loyalties. Yes, slavery was a terribly unjust and inhumane practice, but to me it seems that there were many alternative, practical ways of solving the problem. Fighting fire with fire never creates peace, and to fight this fire, I do not think violence was the correct choice. By no means am I a pacifist, but for such a universally dominant practice, the attack on Harpers Ferry did not seem to be the best method of rebellion. Personally, I would think that someone like Lee would laugh at the efforts of Brown. His plan was poorly executed and almost pathetic, not to be too harsh! Also, my last slightly misanthropic comment would be that I myself can't seem to trust Browns intentions. It doesn't make sense to me why one would dedicate his entire life to such a bewildering cause, knowing that it would be the cause of his death. I can sense some ulterior motives driving Brown, whether it be fame or glory... I don't think abolition was his main incentive. By the way, did anyone else find it ironic that the first person to die in battle was an African American? It seems to me like a sign from some existential being that the attack on Harpers Ferry was not the best choice..
While by this point in the book, it is hard to argue that Brown was a terrorist, as Laura said, he did not want his men to use violence unless absolutely necessary. However, Part II shows that Brown was a misguided hero. Brown seemed absorbed by hatred of the South more than love for his cause. He seemed more determined to kill than actually help the slaves, as he never did warn them of his plans. Brown also sent mixed signal. For instance, he believed in strict moral behavior, which he inherited through his Calvinist upbringing, but his deep hatred of the South caused him to act violently. People were also confused of his intentions when one of his men killed a black man, Heyward Shepherd, because he said he wished to save the blacks from slavery. If Brown had been more direct with his men about his plans, however misguided, maybe more would have understood him.
I think Part II also exposed the deeper problems concerning Brown's plans. In Part I, it was revealed that Brown did not tell his plans to many, and those to whom he did tell his plans of attacking the South, such as Frederick Douglass, doubted him. This secretive tendency led to an experienced set of soldiers who did not even know what they were supposed to do. Brown would bring people into his grand scheme, such as his son's wives, and then leave them in the dark. Even Kagi, his second-in-command, could not get an answer back from Brown when he asked if they should retreat. Maybe if he had listened to others, (that a valley is a bad place to make camp, or that the slaves would not rise with him) he would have acted more rashly, or at least carried out his attack more successfully.
Once I finished part II, I realized my original thought of Brown had changed. Initially, I saw Brown as a terrorist (the Pottawatomie massacre being my leading reason.) Now I see him as more of a vigilante, for his attack on Harper's Ferry was intended to be nonviolent. The attack was an honorable attempt at creating peace.
On the other hand, in no way shape or form was the attack well planned or executed. Sure, Brown worked on his plans for so many years that one would believe it had to be flawless. But it was far from that. Actually, nearly everything went wrong and that is why I am left confused. Why did Brown ignore the idea that maybe he wouldn't be rallied with or that he wasn't in an ideal place for defense? Maybe his appreciation for religion or pride in his cause blocked some of his thinking but does anyone have an idea as to why he was so strategically inept?
Part II was the utmost revealing of John Brown's character and intentions. As honorable as his actions seem to make him, however, i find that his erroneous plan was on the verge of suicidal. A true heroic gentleman would not have almost carelessly waasted the lives of his followers and even family members. Brown is starting to come across as a lunatic who is disillusioned about his attack being successful. Whether it be Brown's unbelievable composure in the face of death, or his mistaken confidence in his plan, he acted in true heroic fashion as he was demanded of answers.
After finishing Part II, like many others, I would not consider John Brown a terrorist. Throughout this part, I was surprised how John Brown never lost sight of his mission and did not switch from an honorable leader to a killing lunatic. His goal from the beginning was not to punish Southerners for their sins, but to free the slaves. John Brown clearly ordered his men to not start the bloodshed, and to fight back if met with resistance. His public image mattered greatly to him, since he did not want to be seen as the enemy, so the public would not associate his name with the killing of innocent townspeople, but with ridding the nation of slavery. I do agree with Hillman, that it is perplexing that John Brown would not consider the possibility of the townspeople fighting back against midnight invaders who threatened the Southerners’ way of life. I think he must have known bloodshed was inevitable, but continued to pursue his men into Harpers Ferry, even with a slim chance of return. Brown differentiates himself from most abolitionists who believe in moral uplift as the way to end slavery. Brown believes something startling is what the nation needs, and is willing to put his devotion to fighting for the freedom of slaves above his own life. He knew that the raid of Harpers Ferry was his only chance to spark tensions between the North and South, and the only way to make the abolishment of slavery a nation wide topic.
Right off the bat I agree with Althea, Part II had a very different tone of writing as well as a different focus. I thought that Horwitz took a much more favorable tone to Brown, still portraying him more as a man who wanted to make a statement but a much less bloodthirsty one. What I thought was a striking difference was how Brown ordered his men to not kill unless it was absolutely necessary, a shocking juxtaposition next to the Brown who was described as impatient for action and ready at any moment to unholster his pistol. His actions during the siege of Harper's Ferry mixed his fanaticism with gentlemanly conduct and an unmovable demeanor. I feel that Part II shows just how committed Brown is to the abolitionist cause and leaves me wondering if he is crazy or if he truly is willing to carry out the word of God even if it means fighting to the last man, which I am sure Brown would have done. I think though, that Brown's ideals had gotten the better part of his judgement when it came to executing his plan. As it was described, there were only about 50 slaves for Brown to free while a neighboring county with a population of thousands had a substantially larger amount of slaves for liberating. If the raid was to get more supplies, why not a simple robbery or smuggling that would not end in a siege with the Marines coming to intervene? Brown knew fully what he was doing and I believe that the raid was for shock value as he described to Frederick Douglass. An attack on federal soil which was fairly close the national capitol as well as taking a relative of George Washington hostage was sure to thrust Brown and his cause to the forefront of the American people.
I also thought the more specific focus on an isolated event gave a different perspective on Brown and his men. Part I spanned over years and years of time while this part focused on the magnum opus of Brown's work as well as the preparation leading up to it. I believe this is why we feel more sympathy for Brown since we get to know him, his men, and his cause much more personally. Over the course of the 32 hour battle Brown refused to waiver even when the fight was basically over. What I did think was the most ironic part of the book so far was when the slaves were released and given weapons, contrary to Brown's theory, they were the ones who wanted to fight the least, fearing summary execution at the hands of the white mob. Even if Brown had escaped, that would have put a mortal blow in his plans since he was relying on most of his support from slaves willing to fight. All of these shortfalls as well as Brown's refusal to acknowledge them during the battle make me think that his greatest weakness is his tunnel vision. He can only focus on a few things at a time but fails to see the larger picture, such as how he was able to hold the armory yet did not give orders to his men in the surrounding positions.
In part II, we see Brown's long-awaited plan launched into action. Brown carries out his mission, and it becomes evident that he was more focused on sending a message than actually executing his plan. When the battle is explained in such a detailed manner, it seems as though Brown knew that he and his men had no real chance of getting out alive. This plays into the perspective of Brown as an intentional martyr for the cause. He seems to think that by showing his willingness to die for the cause, he will have more of an impact on the abolitionist movement. It is for this reason that I believe he makes sure that he and his men are honorable and treat their prisoners and innocent people as kindly as possible. To me, it was striking how Brown was able to remain humane and steadfast to his ideals in the face of such commotion. He stayed strong to the end, never wavering or showing any intentions of reasonable surrender.
Brown's willingness to spare lives brings up an interesting point to the argument of weather or not he was a terrorist. His cause was noble, his commitment unwavering, and his bravery unmatched. These factors would lead many (including myself) to believe that he was no such terrorist. There is always the counterargument, however, that Brown willingly and intentionally took innocent American lives. Part II calls that theory into question, as it shows how he tried so hard to avoid killing anyone who was not combative and treat his prisoners as well as e could. This to me proves Brown to be a warrior and a hero not a terrorist.
For all of Brown’s planning and preparation it seems his failure of his attack to spark a revolution was well deserved and could have been expected. For the many days spent in an attic without proper training, Brown should not have expected much when the time came to launch the raid. He also should have listened to Frederick Douglass and never commenced the attack in the first place but that is somewhat of an unreasonable expectation. The point when some of Brown's men fled and were mercilessly slaughtered by the townspeople was recoiling; the townspeople had the upper hand in the situation. Although, they have to be given some leniency as their town was under siege, they could have easily captured the fleeing men instead of executing and mutilating the black soldiers. When held up in the armory, it was foolish that Brown believed he was in a position to bargain. Lee's swift and crushing response demonstrated how little of a threat Brown posed and how even if his attack was successful he had little chance beyond Harper’s Ferry. As for whether Brown is a terrorist or not, I still will stick with the idea that it is a matter of perspective.
The absurdity of John Brown’s plan is apparent in part two of Midnight Rising, with the savage raid on Harpers Ferry. It seems that Brown did not intend to leave Harpers Ferry alive. However, he did not reveal this to his men as he knowingly led them to their deaths. Horwitz notes how Brown stayed in the town for far too long to reasonably believe that he was going to have any chance of escape. The incompetence of Brown’s forces also shows as the town’s people retaliate and force most of his men into the armory. Fredrick Douglas’s belief that Brown’s raid on Harpers Ferry destined for failure turned out to be accurate. The gruesome nature of the period is shocking as the town’s people mutilate the corpse of Dangerfield Newby, cutting off his ears for souvenirs. Although Brown’s raid seems to share the ironic nature of Turner’s and Pottowanimie in the fact that more Blacks are killed, Fredrick Douglas describes the raid best, “If John Brown did not end the war that ended slavery, and he did at least begin the war that ended slavery.”
In the attack on Harper’s Ferry John Brown proves himself to be a leader, as Grace mentioned. That being said he is not a very good one. Brown continually refused to listen to others opinions and was never swayed by others arguments as to why the mission into Harper’s Ferry was too dangerous. I was surprised by Brown’s stubbornness and naivety. He seemed to believe he could simply free the slaves in Harper’s Ferry and dictate terms to the enemies because he had taken prominent citizens hostage. He also did not seem disturbed by the fact that the most of the country would be against him and that they would most likely be outnumbered. Because of this I do not view his actions as entirely heroic. While Brown was fighting to free slaves, an honorable and noble cause, he did not thoroughly plan out the attack and put himself and his men in more danger because of this. In response to Lindsey, I have to disagree. I still think that John Brown is a terrorist. While he had good intentions, he still invaded a peaceful town and took citizens as hostages. This behavior is not that of a hero, but a terrorist who uses terror to achieve their goals.
Finishing Part II, I have concluded that, in my mind, John Brown was not a terrorist. While he did stage a raid and take hostages, he fervently insisted that he did not kill anyone unless completely and utterly necessary. Brown followed through on this promise; while a few lives were taken unnecessarily, the lives were not lost as a result of Brown's direct orders. The treatment of the hostages also convinced me of Brown's honest intentions. The hostages were treated relatively well and only even taken so their slaves could be freed. John Brown even went out of his way to provide breakfast for the hostages as well as his men. Although Brown's intentions were honest, many lives were lost in the raid at Harpers Ferry. As Governor Henry Wise said, "[Brown] is a fanatic... but firm, and truthful, and intelligent."
Part II, as Davis and Althea mentioned, painted John Brown in a much more amicable light, going into detail about his family and leadership. It also seems to paint the townspeople of Harpers Ferry as less likable. The deaths of Brown's men by the townspeople are described in the most savage, gruesome way possible. From their point of view, however, they were heroically protecting their town from savage abolitionist invaders. Going through the previous comments, I notice that there is wide agreement after reading Part II that John Brown is not a terrorist. Perhaps this view can be attributed to the writing style of Part II painting John Brown as brave and honest.
I too, have been thinking about the writing style of this book. I didnt notice it so much in Part I, perhaps it is because Part I supported my opinion more, but Part II definately paints Brown in a different light, showing a bit more of the savior and less of the saboteur. I believe this was due more to the change in information given, than any change in Brown's character. Despite the slight change in tone of Part II, I still see Brown as a religious fanatic, hellbent on completing and being successful in at least one of the endevors he put forth in his life. This opinion is based entirely on how I have interpreted Brown as a person. and has nothing to do with his time period or his ultimate goals. Just because the road is paved with good intentions does not justify all action taken on the journey.
Furthering the discussion of Horwitz's writing tyle however, I would like to complement him on his ability to write a decisive biography, without making it biased. I have read biographies in the past which have been ruined by the author's inability to come to a conclusion on any aspects of the history of the person he/she is writing about. My only complaints about this book, would be that sometimes the story is bogged down by too much only marginally pertinent information, and that Horwitz doesn't directly source many of his quotes. This is especially frustrating when he quotes Brown based not on his letters, which Brown personally wrote, but on things he said to his men/family. As was shown in Part I, in reference to the masacre, Brown's family and soldiers are willing to change their stories, in an effort to change how Brown may be viewed by the public. I know this can go both ways, and any media references during the time will be biased as well, but it is difficult to make a concrete decision on the question of weither Brown is a terrorist or hero, without understanding how he, his family, his men, and the people of the time saw him.
One thing that strikes me as odd, and yet also alludes to John Brown's possible mental illness, is how many of Brown's plans seem to contradict each other. On one hand, Brown makes extensive plans for a drawn out campaign of guerrilla warfare. This includes the maps and plans for mountain hideouts and bunkers, as well as the pikes to arm the newly freed slave population. But as the day of the attack draws near, his plans seem laughable, with no possibility of the drawn out campaign that brown had hoped for. Brown seals the fate of his plan with his decisions during the battle, such as not defending their only escape route, the bridge, and staying holed up in the armory instead of staying mobile as originally planned. Was this simply the folly of an ill prepared leader, or did Brown intend to die at Harper's Ferry all along? It is suggested in the book that Brown wanted to send a message, not survive. If that is the case though, why did Brown use so much of their time and money preparing for his war? My best guess is that at some point prior to the raid, Brown realized his plan was doomed but was too far along in his plans to delay any longer. Brown was probably at Kennedy farm when he made the decision to go ahead with the raid knowing it was doomed. This would explain Brown's lack of motivation during the fight to stay alive and win the fight.
As previously stated John Browns true character and leadership skills are outlined in Part II. When Brown leads his attack he intends it to be peaceful using his guns and hold of the armory as a scare tactic to get his slavery rebellion underway. He enters the town saying his intentions are not to harm anyone, showing his peaceful and in a way heroic side of himself. After a townsperson is shot people do not believe his intentions of peace are true. When things get helter-skelter and his men are being killed, his heroic ways are thrown out the window. In the beginning Browns leadership encourages his men forward and ready to follow their leader. He moves away from these peaceful heroic tactics into an evil last ditch effort to achieve his now impossible goal. His holding of citizens raises many questions of his peaceful intentions with the townspeople not knowing his next rash move. After his last effort to achieve his dream and his capture it left me with many unanswered questions. Why was the attack not planned better? Couldn't a man of his popularity and record bring a bigger and more powerful force? Wouldn't he have known the plan was suicidal with the size of his force? In the end I believe John Brown to be a hero, but also crazy. His actions were intended to be peaceful with him striving to fulfill his belief about slavery, but him attacking with such a small force is puzzling and questions his sanity.
John Brown is a complicated character whose motives are obscured by his solemn face and rigid upbringing. While in the engine house with his hostages, Brown would continually explain his cause to them, making it clear that he has no intent of hurting others, but to only free the slaves. Like other comments had stated above, Brown was sending mixed messages and I think he was being delusional. How could Brown possibly believe that no one would oppose him and he could take all the slaves away without a fight? It's just too outrageous.
Brown's Calvinist upbringing supported pacifism and devotion, but it is mitigated by the amount of violence in the raid on Harper's Ferry. However, in direct contrast to this, the author describes the raid in such a light to make it seem like the Southerners were barbaric and had no right to treat the admirable John Brown in such a way. The dessication of Dangerfield Newby's body compared to John Brown ordering breakfast for his hostages is a great example of how the author, Tony Horwitz, displays Brown as being brave and respectful. It's hard to decide what John Brown is at this point, but I don't feel like he is insane. He has motives for staying in the armory, but I can't tell what they are. Perhaps he wishes to be a martyr, strengthening his followers and Abolitionism, comparable to other similar figures like Jesus.
John Brown's main plan of action, seizing Harpers Ferry in order to arm the slaves and create an uprising, was at last realized on July 4, 1859 when he moved into the Kennedy Farmhouse and started to set up camp. As I read Tony Horwitz's retelling of Brown's preparations at the Kennedy Farm before his raid, I could not help but agree with the people of Harpers Ferry in calling John Brown a terrorist. Knowing the circumstances under which Brown was leasing the farm and what his plan was, I compared Brown and his gang to a terrorist sleeper cell waiting for the opportune moment to strike (they even had John Cook as a mole in Harpers Ferry, spying on everyone and learning their weaknesses). However, my feelings quickly changed after I read what Brown said to his men the night before the raid: “You all know how dear life is to you, and how dear your life is to your friends. Do not, therefore, take the life of any one if you can possibly avoid it; but if it is necessary to take life in order to save your own, then make sure work of it.” (129) I would call Brown more of a hero or, as Patrick said, a vigilante, than I would call him a terrorist for he did value human life and knew that the moment he killed an innocent his cause would be distorted. I do believe that he was not insane (as was proven in the first part of Midnight Rising) nor was he a terrorist. His good intentions were shrouded by the inadequacy of his plan that left his lieutenants struggling for survival and the townspeople of Harpers Ferry thinking they were under attack.
How then did Brown, who had spent months preparing for this raid, let so many civilians get killed, injured and shot at? How did he manage to get his whole force either killed or cornered? It was poor planning on his part. Although Brown needed to keep his plan shrouded in secrecy as to ensure that he would not be discovered and executed, his plan was flawed. One major flaw that I saw was that once he had taken the Harpers Ferry armory, he did not give any notice to slaves to rise up and rebel. None of the slaves knew about this, and so there was no slave rebellion to reinforce his men. Instead, Brown walked right into a fire engine house style trap. How did he overlook the flaws in his plan? Was he so determined to succeed that once he had settled on the basics he never bothered to double check his plan? I think that possibly his religious fanaticism effected his judgement and made him believe that no matter what happened his faith in his plan (and his faith in God) would guide him and his men to safety and ensure the success of his mission. However that was not the case, and the man who had worked so hard to free his “fellow-men” (24) saw his plan die right before his eyes.
After reading Part II, it becomes clear that John Brown certainly does not display that characteristics of a terrorist. Throughout his raid on Harper's Ferry, Brown makes it clear that his goal is to free slaves and not to kill. He repeatedly tells his prisoners that although he is holding them at gunpoint, he does not mean them any harm, and wishes to avoid bloodshed if possible. Brown's treatment of his prisoners says a lot about his character. Given his devotion to abolitionism and his fierce opposition to slavery, you would think that he would be angry with the slave owners for being a part of the particular institution. John Brown's peaceful attitude toward the white southerners shows the strong morals that guide him. The fact that he only wishes to grant freedom to the slaves, and has no desire to take revenge on the slave owners for their indiscretions shows that Brown is not a terrorist. He probably acquires his ability to not seek vengeance from his devout christianity. Brown simply does what he believes God wants him to do, which is to end the system of slavery, and nothing more.
Part II showed that John Brown was ultimately committed to achieving his goal at Harper's Ferry of liberating the local slaves and arming them to support an insurrection. Both terrorists and heroes are committed to goals, their differences lie in the manner of pursuit of these goals. If John Brown the terrorist aimed to raid Harper's Ferry to support a slave rebellion, he would have done so with a different mindset; one of utter control. This would constitute slaughter, power, and carnage. His actions would have been more provoked and intentional, as he wiped out all shown oppression. Likewise, if John Brown the hero had aimed to seize Harper's Ferry, he would have entered more prepared. He would have aimed to make his actions seem humane and justified, that what he was doing was not meant to harm or kill. Instead, people like the frightened passengers on the train, or the citizen's of Harper's Ferry fell into a panic when they heard rumors of Pottawatomie Brown with 700 armed slaves killing everyone as they raided the federal armory. His intentions and ultimate goal may now seem right and justified, causing us to treat him as a martyr, but in the moment, his actions were sudden and powerful. No less, he attacked property of the United States, which led to the dispatch of Marines, further elevating the situation. The ways in which Brown conducted himself and his men during the operation were chivalric and noble given the circumstances. Their treatment of hostages and conduct during negotiations showed that they believed in their cause and that they were civil. Their flaw was that they ultimately struck at a target in the midst of a very unforgiving audience. In the middle of a slave state, they attacked a town, killed its mayor, and holed up on federal property. Intentions now are surpassed by perception; the men in the town now are a threat and are killing people. I believe that John Brown was a man who believed what he was doing was just and approved by God, and conducted himself in a manner that proved so. However, once he launched a surprise attack on slave state land, against federal property, he became an enemy that needed to be subdued. He is thus a hero in his own eyes, and those of many historians, but a terrorist in the eyes of the people at the time, which are the ones that matter.
Part II of Midnight Rising certainly focuses on building Brown's character up to the assault on Harper's Ferry. While it can be argued that Brown's did not take the necessary steps to properly prepare himself and his men for the actual assault, Brown does show an unwavering determination to his cause, emphasized by his willingness to sacrifice towards his god-given goal of defeating slavery. However, this failed to change my opinion on the classification of Brown's character as a terrorist. As has been mentioned above, Brown was in many ways a religious extremist and threat to society in the eyes of the people of Harper's Ferry. He did take hostages, he did kill opposition, and he did seize one of the largest government armories - within close proximity to Washington D.C. He caused confusion and Mayhem, enough so that the US government had to send a large outfit of troops to combat his raiding party. Although Brown's intent was benign and although he carried out his raid in a chivalrous manner, at the time he and his men certainly posed as a violent and aggressive threat to the general public as well as the United States Government. This, in addition to Brown's actions up to the actual raid on Harper's Ferry, are clear evidence as to why Brown can only be classified as a terrorist, even if in our eyes he was a "good terrorist".
Throughout Part I and II i have been torn between seeing Brown as both a terrorist and a hero, but Ben brings up an interesting point of a "good terrorist". Terrorism is the use of violence and threats to intimidate, especially for political purposes. From strict definition, setting aside Brown's intentions, i think we can all agree "terrorism" was essentially his foremost tactic. Instead of peaceful means, he was one to take action, and he used violence to assert his ideas of antislavery. Terrorism is not always done out of hate, as we can see in Brown's case, he used terrorism to promote what most Americans consider to be a good cause.
After reading part II, my view of John Brown has completely changed. I originally thought that he was a hero and wasn’t anything close to a terrorist. Now, I am very conflicted. It’s obvious that this mission was a failure and he is not a hero but I can’t decide whether or not he is a terrorist. One could argue that he is a terrorist because he planned the raid and he indirectly started a chain reaction of deaths. But, one could also say he is not a terrorist because he himself didn’t want to kill anyone, told his men to only kill in self-defense, and showed kindness to his hostages. Whether or not he is a terrorist, I am sure that he is a little crazy. As a result of this insanity, his actions reflect those of a martyr. He doesn’t care about the slaves anymore, he just wants to complete the “mission” he believes God gave him. However, he is willing to stand and fight for this mission, even risking his own life to do so. Many people, including his second in command and a freed slave, told him that invading Harpers Ferry was a bad idea. He didn’t listen and in the end they were right. Almost half of Brown’s men died within the first 48 hours, including two of his sons. Instead of backing out when he had a chance and saving his life and the lives of his remaining men, he decided to stay and fight for what he believed in. Any sane person would put the lives of their men over anything else, but Brown had lost his mind in the mission and decided to risk everything for the cause. Though his mind was narrowed by his beliefs, he was loyal and was willing to die for them, making him a martyr. I don’t see John Brown as a hero because, at least for now, he didn’t do anything except get people killed. That’s why I’m conflicted on whether he is a terrorist or not. I know this raid sparked the Civil War but in part II there is no immediate reaction throughout the rest of the country. How long will it take for people to react to what had just happened?
I was talking with Drew Welch the other day on the topic of how to "classify" John Brown as a hero, terrorist, etc. We came to the conclusion that anyone who uses violence as a means of obtaining victory can be considered a terrorist. However, Brown was no terrorist, but also far from a hero. At the end of the day, he, as Henry Wise said, was "a fanatic, vain and garrulous, but firm, and truthful, and intelligent" (185). I do not agree with Wise's other ideas, but this quote stuck out to me. He refered to Brown neither as a criminal nor a terrorist, but as a highly intelligent and courageous religious extremist. Even though Brown had a "good cause" for his invasion of the armory, it is very difficult to call him anything but a zealot.
On top of this, Brown did not appear phased that his campaign into "Africa" was stopped short. "Brown said he was by no means annoyed; on the contrary he was glad to be able to make himself and his motives clearly understood" wrote a reporter (183). I think that this idea of sending a message defines Brown's evolved intentions by the end of the raid. In the last stand in the engine house, he did not fear death but welcomed the publicity of his actions. This also is interesting, as this mentality is similar in both heroes AND terrorists. Maybe the third part will reveal more details about the aftermath of Brown's invasion, potentially giving us a better idea of what his intentions really were, if he wanted to start the Civil War in such large proportions.
After reading Part II, John Brown showed himself as more of a hero rather than a terrorist in my opinion. Throughout the 24 hour span of their plan unfolding at Harper's Ferry, the book goes into immense detail of each persons role in Brown's militia. Brown, along with the others involved in his plan announce repeatedly their common goal to abolish slavery to their captors. Brown also states multiple times that his goal was not to hurt or kill anyone on the way to achieve this goal but to rather focus on the slaves long deserved freedom. The books shift in focus from Brown's religious extremism to more of a heroic push for abolition makes Brown look more heroic rather than more like a terrorist.
Part II of Midnight Rising gives us a greater inside to the thoughts and motivations of John Brown. In part one, Brown could have been viewed as a ruthless abolitionist killing anybody who got in his way. However, part two clearly shows how Brown was determined not to take any innocent lives. This thought was expressed in Brown's speech to his men before the raid. To me, this idea of saving as many people as he can draws a clear distinction between a terrorist and a hero. Another trait of Brown that makes him a hero is his respect and honor he shows toward his prisoners. He allows some of the prisoners to go home and tell their families that they are all right and he provides hot meals for them. All of these actions clearly show that John Brown was not out to terrorize the people of the south and that all he wanted was for the slaves to be set free.
One thing I find interesting is what Brown ultimately wanted to accomplish with this raid. Brown's goal was to topple the U.S. government and set up his own constitution in the mountains of Virginia. All of this would have been set off by a raid of an armory. This plan was completely unrealistic and Brown had been told that it probably would not have worked. So then why did he go through with it? Maybe Brown's main goal was to just create higher level of attention to slavery and set an example of how people should rebel against it. If this was his actual goal he certainly succeeded.
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’s actions in part II proved he was not a merciless terrorist. Brown immediately informed both his men and his captives that his intention was not to kill. As a faithful Calvinist Brown acknowledged the value of life, and did not wish to take it from anyone, unless forced to do so as a last resort. Brown showed much decency toward the hostages ensuring they were fed as well as possible, and even allowing one man to return home briefly to let his family know he was safe. As others have mentioned, Brown was very honorable in staying true to his mission. He stood by his one goal of abolishing slavery as opposed to simply killing all southerners who opposed his views. John Brown maintained his composure when he had no chance of victory. Brown stayed devoted to the cause even when some of his men abandoned him. He refused to surrender or make negotiations when the opportunity came. Even after being severely wounded and then captured, Brown used his interrogation session as an opportunity to further convey his opinions and beliefs. John Brown’s readiness to fight back only angered his enemies more. Brown’s willingness to both spare the lives of his own men and to slaughter innocent people show a lapse in his heroic character. Despite this, his dedication to the noble abolitionist cause prevents the possibility for him to be classified as a true terrorist.
I believe that Part Two: Into Africa really shed a different light on Brown. The author's stance upon Brown changes. From the beginning, especially in the prologue, Horwitz' interest within Brown was made clear. I feel the first part of this book really shows in high detail the evidence which the reader may be able to clarify in his or her eyes that Brown is a hero, terrorist, madman, etc. I believe the author's fascination is more evident within the second part, and therefore makes the judgement more difficult since Horwitz often goes into high detail about the minor details (overall I found this to be one of the most difficult obstacles reading this section). There is a lot more focused not only on Brown's meticulous planning, but also on the other members of his party. This shift, I believe, caused me to look more closely at the whole of the plan and question whether Brown (as Drew Sigler pointed out above) truly wanted to die, or whether his planning (all throughout his life) was seriously flawed.
Brown's fight for abolition and his regard for human life are noble causes. And throughout the second part of the novel he didn't seem as ruthless and tyrannical as in the previous section. He seemed to be more careful and calculating. This wisdom seemed to tone Brown's madness. However I still believe that Brown was a terrorist.
In part II Horowitz sheds a more positive light on Brown. He portrays Brown as an enthusiastic and thoughtful hero for the anti-slavery cause rather than the maniacal religious figure seen in part II. However, Brown's actions are still shockingly similar to that of the despised terrorists of the Middle East. He rented a barn and used it to train his small militia while taking measures to avoid the public eye in preparation for his strike. Brown stresses to his prisoners that he means no harm, but he can not be so naive to think that there will be no violence. In this it is hard to determine weather Brown is simply insane and so far disillusioned with reality that he really believes he can hold several prestigious figures hostage and simply walk away with a handful of freed slaves, or if Brown is once again putting on a show.
While reading part II, my previous opinion of John Brown being a hero rather than a terrorist was confirmed. I feared that Brown would resort to killing those who were proslavery rather than focusing on freeing the slaves, but he never lost sight of his true goal. He makes a point to tell his men that this is not a mission to kill by saying: "do not, therefore, take the life of any one if you can possibly avoid it; but if it is necessary to take life in order to save your own, then make sure work of it" (129). While many recruits were losing faith in his mission due to the numerous false starts and lack of money, Brown continued to show his determination.
Also, as Mia mentioned, John Brown did not lose all hope when he knew the victory he had hoped for was out of reach. Instead, Brown continued to fight but in a different way. After being captured he answered all questions while continuing to promote the abolitionist cause.
Part II was incredibly helpful in deciding whether to label Brown as a terrorist or a hero, because it provided insight into how he interacted with both his opponents, and his troops. Rather than resorting to violence against those who supported slavery, Brown chose to explain his cause. It was repeatedly emphasized that Brown's intention was not to resort to killing innocent civilians, but to focus on promoting the abolition of slavery. Violence was only intended to be used as a last resort, for self defense. For the first time, Brown shows himself as a leader to his troops and continues to inspire his men even when it was evident that victory was not a possible outcome. Even after the battle is lost, and Brown is in custody he continues to "promote the abolitionist cause", as Maddie had said, which is a trait of a great leader and a true hero.
Previously, I was undecided whether to label John Brown a hero or a terrorist due to his ruthless acts of violence. After reading Part II, I have decided to label Brown as a hero. As many others have posted, after gaining more insight on John Brown’s thoughts and motivations, I deem his violent actions to be heroic. Also, throughout Part II, Horwitz repeatedly states how John Brown’s intentions were not to murder innocent civilians. Instead, violence was only to be used as a last resort (against civilians opposed Brown’s cause to abolish slavery). Agreeing with Chris, I feel that in Part II, Horwitz portrays John Brown differently than in Part I. In Part I, Horwitz portrays Brown as extremely religious and somewhat fanatical about his cause (which could categorize him as a terrorist). In Part II, Brown is portrayed as caring and heroic. I feel that these qualities are truly shown when at the end of Part II when Brown is being questioned by Senator Mason and he states, “I hold that the golden rule, do unto others as you would that others should do unto you, applies to all who would help others to gain their liberty” (186).
After reading part II it became clear the Brown did not intend to purposely use violence unless it became necessary for his cause. He did not have specific intentions to hurt people unless he was faced with resistance. This displays him as more of a hero than a terrorist because he was more focused on freeing the slaves than causing violence in Harpers Ferry. Agreeing with what many have stated above, I believe that part II displays Brown as more of a hero than terrorist. However I do wonder how he planned to free the slaves without facing any resistance from the people in Harpers Ferry. Did he think that they were just going to let their slaves go? Did he plan on being met with no resistance from the townspeople? Even though he was faced with resistance he never once used unnecessary violence or intended to harm people when violence was not necessary. The entire time he was completely devoted to freeing the slaves and nothing else. Even after his capture he was still devoted to his cause and was never seen as being disloyal similar to many of his men. Going off of what Laura and Lindsey mentioned above Brown’s devotion never waivered even after his capture. Many of his men gave up hope as soon as they were captured, but Brown did not act in this way. Part II definitely confirmed Brown as a hero rather than a terrorist in my mind.
Throughout part two, I found it disappointing that John Brown continually put his plan before the well- being of his family members. In the beginning of the novel Brown used his family for aid and resources, however, as the raid on Harpers Ferry drew closer he tore some of his sons away from their young families. Not only this, Brown knew he was destined to die fighting for this cause and lead his sons into battle knowing that they could have the same fate. Although John Brown was trying to end the horrific mistreatment of slaves, I think it was selfish to put this before his family, all of whom did so much for him. In my opinion while Brown was trying to free slaves from bondage, at the same time he was imprisoning his own family who did not share the same ardent beliefs towards raiding Harpers Ferry. He should have recruited more forceful men rather than pressuring his sons many of whom had weary feelings about participating in the attack. Does anyone else think this was selfish or was it necessary for Brown to recruit as many men as possible?
After reading Part II, I still do not believe that John Brown was a hero in any way. I believe that his faith and devotion to God and his cause, completely blinded him from seeing the reality of his situation. Eighteen men passionate (to the point of insanity) to one cause versus a heavily guarded and armed town full of (angry) citizens with resources. I find it hard to believe that he didn’t realize the odds were never in his favor. I think he truly believed that eighteen men could liberate the slaves of Harper’s Ferry and take over the rest of the town. Unfortunately for him, this plan failed. A shocking side note was that the first to die for Brown’s cause was a black man. I found that completely ironic. Although Brown displayed much courage and valor, I found he needed to in order to save his reputation and face. He also needed to be the unflinching leader to keep the faith and trust of his very limited “army,” even though some would later abandon him. Brown’s raid, which I found to be a very weak one at that, did not even manage to fulfill its goal. Any slave Brown had liberated during his disoriented attack were returned to bondage once the madness ceased. I’m interested to see now that Brown has been wounded and captured how he will argue his case to the rest of the world. I do not find him innocent and I do not have sympathy for an old man with a vicious mind who’s motto is ‘do or die’. Brown managed to save all his wits after the attack and I’m sure he is capable of making a good argument for himself using God as his witness. As someone mentioned earlier, I too am interested to see how the South will react to Brown’s religious reasonings. Brown may also be considered as a fundamentalist and his contradiction of his religious teachings probably would not attract many admirers. Either way I doubt his story will do him much good for he attacked a proslavery town in the hopes to rid the United States of slavery.
As this portion of the reading consisted of the actual raiding of Harper's Ferry it was easiest to identify Brown as a terrorist. I do admit I often found myself horrified by the brutality of this conspiracy. However I found myself unable to label John Brown as either a terrorist or hero in this section, despite my previous standing. Even after reading classmates posts in hopes of being swayed I only found myself further in limbo. Some called Brown a definite terrorist for his horrific actions, others identified him as a hero for his brilliant intentions, others criticized us for our beliefs and called them wrong. It was those comments that left me most confident in not being able to decide. John Brown wasn't wrong in fighting to free slaves. He was driven by his own Calvinist beliefs that he had grown up on. However by saying that I also found myself agreeing that the federal army which fought against him was not wrong in their intentions either. They fought for a cause that they believed in as well and had grown up on: slavery. I am in no way saying that I believe slavery is morally acceptable, I am however saying that fighting for what you believe in is what America was founded on, and I cannot allow myself to call anybody "wrong" for doing that. There morals being wrong is another situation. But then again neither sides morals were right. There was a scene in which Mayor Beckham had just been brutally shot dead, and in retaliation Hunter kills Thompson in an equally brutal way. This is childish and shows how wrong any form of cruelty is. Terrorism is often looked at from a very narrow view point. Often we only see how horrific being attacked in 9/11 was. Few times do we acknowledge just how horrific our retaliation on these countries is. Despite our success in terminating terrorists we fail to recognize the innocent lives lost there too. We may be heroes to our own country, but we certainly are the terrorists for others. And for this reason I found myself unable to take a standpoint for this section of reading. I may agree with his motive but I certainly do not agree with Brown's methods. As a third party to this event I found that I needed to remain neutral because I understood both sides while also fearing both as well. Maybe the last part of the reading will help sway me, but as of this moment I cannot allow myself to call him either because of my own morals.
In Part II of Midnight Rises, Tony Horwitz displays Brown’s more caring and gentler side. This part of the novel documents his journey into the slaveholding South. His plot to free the slaves consisted of capturing slaveholders and taking them as hostages. Brown, as Danielle mentioned, never meant to injure these hostages. He told one of his prisoners, Arimistead Ball, about his intentions “to free the slaves- not to make war on the people (141).” Brown’s hostages were well cared for. He allowed the hostage’s wives or daughters to prepare food for the prisoners; Brown paid for breakfast for the other hostages who required nourishment. Brown’s true courage is demonstrated by the fact that he never abandoned his commitment, and fought to the very end. Brown’s instinct to stay and fight during the attack of the engine house exhibits his martyr-like behavior. Brown then was tried, and he knew that he would eventually be sentenced to death. Yet he still preached for his cause to end slavery. “You may dispose of me very easily…but this question is still to be settled- this Negro question…the end of that is not yet (187). His crushing defeat at the engine house was not as disabling as it seemed. Although he lost his battle at Harpers Ferry, Brown’s message was received by many people (both abolitionists and slaveholders). Brown’s actions in “Africa” put slaveholders in constant fear of more warfare from driven men who wanted freedom for those in bondage.
As John Brown’s master plan envelops, he shows a lot about himself and how he is truly doing this for the abolishment of slavery. Although he can be seen as a ruthless killer, he is not killing for any personal reasons or vendettas. He treats all his hostages with respect because he did not set out to kill or harm those particular people, instead he believes the only way he can achieve his goal is if serious action is taken. His mercy shows that he is not a terrorist. He sustains a prevalent attitude that he has control over the situation even when it breaks down. Brown shows to be more of a martyr than a terrorist. You get a feeling that he knew his plan wasn’t going to work and that he just wanted to set an extreme example. His willingness to sacrifice his own life for millions of people that he doesn’t know sends a strong message, one that can split a nation.
The attack on Harper's Ferry reaffirms that Brown is both a hero and a terrorist. His raid is a terrorist attack. He targets a federal armory, takes many people hostage, and several men are killed. However, he is still a hero due to the reasons for his attack, ending slavery. Also, his raid is much less violent and abhorrent then the murders at Pottawatomie. Though several men were killed, they were not killed intentionally under Brown's orders. He also treated his hostages graciously, and showed extreme bravery throughout the attack. He still does not seem insane, though his invasion plan has practically no chance of success. It seems his plan for attacking was to send a message, and provide the spark that will actually lead to the end of slavery. The raid may have been an act of terrorism, but it was also an important act of heroism, to finally bring about the end of slavery.
After reading part two I now believe that Brown is a terrorist. He intentionally invaded the south in order to inflict terror on the people there. It became clear that his mission was no longer to bring the black slaves to safety in the mountains but instead to cause as much chaos as possible. This is evident by the fact that when he was trapped in the Engine House and had no way of escaping or succeeding in a battle he continued to stand his ground at the peril of everyone involved. If his mission had been really to bring slaves to safety why would he endanger them? Brown, stubborn, stayed in the Engine House because he wanted to create a story and to make history—no matter the cost. He knew that his raid would fail and he would not be able to free and arm slaves but to Brown the success of the raid was not important. What Brown actually wanted was to be heard. The only way Brown knew how to communicate his beliefs was through violence and inflicting terror. This method had been instilled upon him as a kid while he was being punished by his father. Brown was able to justify his acts of violence to himself and his family by his extensive knowledge of the Bible. He used passages in the Bible to make his fight into a Holy War much like the Popes during the Crusades. Brown like many modern day terrorists hoped to create an unstable environment that would give his cause an advantage.
The most eye opening aspect of Part II for myself, was the kindness John Brown showed his hostages, and dignity that he displayed after his defeat to his captors. Going back to what Olivia said, Brown never meant to hurt the hostages that day, and tried to make it known to them. He bought them all breakfast, (although some refused to eat it for fear it was poisoned) and even let some see their families. After the fighting was over and Brown was captured by his enemies, he made it clear that he would answer any of the questions they had for him. He was not only polite, but showed no fear when he faced his captors. According to the Richmond Enquirer, when he met Governor Wise, "Brown received him with the uttermost composure, though evidently suffering from his wounds" (185). The Governor later went on to say that although Brown was " a fanatic, vain and garrulous" he was "firm, and truthful, and intelligent" (185). I enjoyed the juxtaposition that Horwitz put into place by showing this likable side of Brown, after examining the violent measures he was willing to go to in Kansas. The detail Horwitz put into the background of the Harper's Ferry raid made me see Brown as more of a person, than as a charter in history. It provided a new element to the story of John Brown that the textbooks I have read in the past did include.
After reading Part II, I have concluded Brown is not a terrorist. I agree with what Jack Conlin said about Brown being a hero in the eyes of historians but a terrorist in the eyes of the people at the time. As an individual living in twenty-first century America, I believe Brown's cause was a righteous one. Brown wanted to prove a point about what he strongly believed in - all men are equal, and thus, slavery should be abolished because it is immoral. As Katie said, Brown did not set out with the intention of killing innocent people. Although his judgment may at times have been clouded by his ambitions, it is my belief Brown set out with a good intent and carried it out to the best of his ability as circumstances would allow. He showed himself to be a responsible leader and devoted much effort to executing his plan as efficiently as possible. As Emily said, fighting for what you believe in is what America was founded upon. Labeling Brown a terrorist for making such a strong statement about his beliefs seems contradictory to what America stands for. Brown's raid certainly terrorized the people at the time; however, his raid was planned with the intent of drawing public attention to his cause of abolishing slavery. If Brown had not acted as he did, who is to say someone else would not have? In a sense, Brown acted as a catalyst.
I thought that this part's emphasis on honor and expectations was particularly striking. It sort of focused on honor the same way that the first part focused on religion, meaning that it contrasted Brown's opinions with those around him and applied those opinions to his actions. I speak, of course, not only of his surprise when he was betrayed, deserted, and abandoned, but also of the peculiar behavior of his hostages. I wonder if the kind of bravery and decency that Brua expressed could be found today, and if it would really be specific to the South, as implied by the author.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of religion, other than some minor mentions of the differences between Brown's fervent Calvinism and the ecstaticism favored amongst his men and of his use of biblical references, this book doesn't really go into how religion affected Brown's relations with his soldiers. Did he curb his punitive Calvinist impulses while his soldiers were seeking female entertainment? Did the religious debates they enjoyed contribute to friction? (I can't seem to immediately find another source that answers these questions. Does anyone else know?)
In response to Althea’s questions, I agree the section fails to provide any hard evidence leading to an answer. However, I believe Brown’s devotion to his religion helped him greatly in his efforts to compose a group with strong unity and dedication. While Brown’s men did not share his religious fanaticism, I think Brown’s religiousness proved his ability to completely devote himself to a cause. Rather than creating friction, it seems Brown’s men drew hope from their leader as he remained so composed and optimistic, a result of his belief in the righteousness of his actions. This appears a valid explanation for several men leaving behind everything they knew and staying in a crowded farmhouse in order to take part in a mission shrouded in mystery.
DeleteWhile the effects of Brown’s religion are not clearly evident on his men, it is obvious Brown’s devotion to the abolitionist cause is deeply rooted in his devotion to God. This leads me to wonder why Brown finds a message to fight slavery, while similarly religious Southerners continue to harshly practice such atrocities. Also, I am interested to see if Brown claims that he is “an instrument of God” convinces the Southerners to reduce the severity of his sentence. Furthermore, I wonder if there will be any sign of an primitive insanity defense, although I doubt Brown would allow it considering his pride in the cause.
Part II clearly dives into the character of Brown in order for the reader to see how seriously devoted he is to the cause he has been serving for a huge portion of his life. As mentioned in my earlier comment, I was unsure whether or not to call Brown a terrorist or a hero, but have concluded he is most definitely (in my mind) not a terrorist. Part II repeatedly has Brown explaining his cause to others, making it known he did not want to initially harm anyone unless met with resistance. He also explains to the townspeople that they are not the enemy; he has simply come to free slaves, not terrorize innocent people.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Althea's question, it seems as though Brown wanted to unite his men solely under the cause they were fighting for. Although Brown's Calvinist instincts provoked him to defeat slavery, I believe Brown kept a simple, unified purpose to band together his men. It seems like Brown believes this method will devote all focus to their movement. This does make me wonder whether or not the group would be stronger if more focus was shifted towards a powerful, religious purpose alongside the idea of fighting slavery. Thoughts?
Brown's character in Part II was eccentric and unpredictable, and I was intrigued by the surprises that he offered. One example, as Jennie and Althea have mentioned, is the chivalry, respect and honor that he showed to everyone during his short-lived raid on Harpers Ferry. I think that this discredits the terrorist theory because terrorists are often thought of as heartless and irrational people, while Brown proved to be just the opposite. Although Brown willingly articulates the reasons for his actions to anyone who will listen, I do think it's a bit odd that he claimed that he didn't intend to make enemies of the townspeople in the process of freeing slaves. The people of Harpers Ferry would not be willing to simply let their slaves go, and it's unlikely that John Brown would have overlooked this in his extensive planning for the attack. He must have expected some collateral damage on innocent citizens, which I believe gives a little more truth to, but does not vindicate, the terrorist theory.
ReplyDeleteI think Jennie is completely right about Brown's belief in the simple unity of the group based on the idea of freeing slaves, regardless of the cause for this belief. However, a common cause like Brown's fierce Calvinism may have produced an even more devoted and tightly knit bunch of abolitionists. Many who lacked Brown's passion abandoned their ostentatious display of loyalty and deserted him when they were needed most. But in the end, do you think Brown and his men would have succeeded anyway, even with that level of unity?
To answer your question, Hillman, it is of my opinion that the attack on Harper's Ferry was doomed regardless of whether or not the group of insurgents was tightly knit or not, for two reasons. One, the sheer numbers quickly come into play when one looks at the attack on Harper's Ferry. No matter how motivated, the plans of a group of eighteen men will most likely be thwarted when they are fighting a town of armed and angry citizens, not to mention a group of ninety highly skilled and experienced United States Marines. Secondly, the attack on Harper's Ferry was doomed from the start due to the ineffective tactics of John Brown. Originally, I thought Brown's purpose for raiding the armory at Harper's Ferry was to have access to the arsenal of guns located at the armory. However, Brown hardly makes the most of what could have been a tactical advantage, and instead sets up shop in the engine house of the armory, which is highly exposed to gunfire. As well, if the next step in Brown's plan was to shepherd the newly freed slaves to the mountains, why would Brown neglect to set up any forts or settlements in the mountains from which to launch further raids? Brown's strategy and daring may have proved to be enough in Kansas, but when attacking a national armory, Brown's planning thoroughly falls flat.
DeleteAs an interesting side note, I found it chilling that a freed black man was the first to die in the raid. Not only is this ironic when one looks at the goal of the raid, but also historically can be compared to what many consider the first death in the American Revolution, which was the death of Crispus Atticus, another freed black man.
In response to your question, Jennie, I think that it is difficult to determine whether or not having a more powerful religious message would have helped Brown’s cause. Brown’s main motivation was fairly religious already, however, his tendency to lean towards violence instead of peace turned some Americans against him. Had he stayed true to his Calvinist principles and not used violence at all, he may have been more successful. In the end, I think it probably wouldn’t have mattered much because most people who practiced slavery would continue to believe in it, and those who were abolitionists would continue to fight it.
ReplyDeleteI was surprised to learn that Brown’s view of abolition was much different from the majority of other white abolitionists. He wanted slaves to take part in their own liberation, while most others believed that slaves were too weak and docile to fight for their rights. Brown shows a great deal of understanding of racial equality through this belief. I certainly feel that Brown’s view on slavery was heroic, especially because few fully agreed with him during that time period. While his cause was good, I still view Brown as a terrorist because of his actions.
In this Part and well as the first, I got the feeling that everyone John Brown explains his intentions to isn't sure how to take him, including his own men. I thought these were most evident when Brown and Frederick Douglass and Brown and the townspeople of Harper's Ferry are conversing. Brown's plan is exceedingly far fetched and I think Douglass is skeptical, how much so I'm not completely certain as I may be interjecting my own opinion into the situation. As for the townspeople and his men, I think they are baffled by Brown's insistence of non-violence due to the fact that he holds Harper's Ferry and the armory with thousands of weapons. Brown also makes several questionable decision that I certainly believe made the townspeople uneasy, i.e. sending the train onward and his negotiation attempts.
ReplyDeleteThroughout Part II, it becomes evident John Brown did not wish to hurt anyone unless they posed a problem for him and his mission. It is difficult to believe, however, Brown thought he would face no resistance seizing Harpers Ferry, taking as hostages many prominent Southerners, and attempting to arm slaves. However, it also disproves Brown having terroristic intentions in Harpers Ferry. He did not seek to terrorize Southerners for their proslavery beliefs in Harpers Ferry, although he had done just that in the past at the Pottawatomie Massacre. Therefore, it is difficult to fully label him as a terrorist or not.
ReplyDeleteHe was quite heroic, however, in maintaining his composure as he lay wounded and as the plan he had spent much of his life on was destroyed in mere minutes. As his captors and the townspeople demanded answers, Brown calmly and thoroughly explained his motives and intentions, as he did throughout his almost completely pre-determined trial. It is difficult to not have respect for the way Brown faced the consequences of his actions, especially after being humiliated by his enemies and even his own men.
After finishing up Part II, I have concluded John Brown is the furthest thing from a terrorist. Although he showed his moments of weakness and poor judgement throughout Part I, the actions taken in the actual seizing of Harper's Ferry only justify his noble and heroic character. Before and during the battle, Brown continuously emphasized the importance of not harming anyone unless it was deemed necessary. As Jennie talked about in her post, Brown's sole mission was the freeing of slaves located in Harper's Ferry. He did not have any subliminal plans or motives, nothing that would distract him from potentially obtaining his ultimate goal. At the end of Part II, when Brown was captured, he still expressed his views with dignity and composure. Although many of his men proved to be disloyal, and this lifelong awaited battle was over in a few minutes, Brown still adhered to the cause he was fighting for. I agree with Madison on the grounds that Brown deserves the utmost respect for accepting his fate and consequences and abiding by what he believes in.
ReplyDeleteIn Part II, the reader sees John Brown take the role of a leader. Harper's Ferry was Brown's first stop in his mission to rid America of slavery. Although he could not fulfill his dream, he certainly made his mark on America. Brown showed many heroic qualities and emphasized that he did not want to hurt anyone unless it was absolutely necessary. I found this surprising, considering the ruthlessness and drive that he showed while killing the proslavery Americans in Part I. Even though many of his men proved to be disloyal, Brown did not give up until he was taken by force. Even after he was taken, he never abandoned his belief of antislavery, as Madison and Lindsey stated. He stuck by his wounded and dead men until the very end and never gave up. During some parts of the battle the reader might have wondered if Brown was making any progress, but I believe that he did. John Brown's strategy was unorganized and chaotic, but he surprised the townspeople of Harper's Ferry because they did not think he was capable of the damage he caused. That said, I am still unsure as to label him a hero or terrorist. He helped slaves and had a heroic cause, but during some parts he killed other Americans, which is unnecessary and could be seen as terroristic. I am eager to find out John Brown's fate and to see how America reacts to him and the battle at Harper's Ferry.
ReplyDeleteAfter finishing part II, I agree with Lindsey that John Brown is clearly not a terrorist. Brown makes his intensions clear: he does not want to harm anyone unless met with opposition. But as Madison said, it is hard to believe that Brown thought he could come into Harpers Ferry with no resistance. The proslavery Southerners were not going to give up their slaves without a fight, and Brown must have realized this, but chose to overlook the fact. Even in the act of taking hostages, Brown tried to treat them as best as he could, this, in my mind, prevents him from being labeled a terrorist. However I would not go as far as calling him a hero.
ReplyDeleteJohn Brown was fiercely devoted to his cause, but most of his followers, even though willing to fight, did not share the same tenacity that Brown displayed. Brown defended his actions and respectfully shared his intentions with his capturers and anyone else that would listen. Some of his men however, as soon as they thought they were going to be captured tried to surrender only to be caught fighting on Brown’s side soon after. To answer Hillman’s question even though some of Brown’s men proved to be disloyal, I do not believe that that heavily influenced the outcome of Harpers Ferry. Brown’s men might have been able to fight a little long if more men had been loyal till the end and they could have been more organized in the attack, but eventually the fight would have ended in the same place: the capture of John Brown. In Browns extensive planning, I believe he knew exactly how he wanted to go about the attack and nobody was going to stop him or interfere in any way.
After reading part II, like many others, I have decided John Brown is a hero. Brown tried to spread his beliefs with as little bloodshed as possible. He told his men only to commit a violent act if it was completely necessary; his plans at Harper's Ferry did not go as expected and violence became the only option. Although I see Brown as a hero, I also see his faults. Brown cared more about his cause than any of the people helping him spread it. He most likely knew the majority of his men,including his sons, would not survive Harper's Ferry but he led them to their deaths anyway. Also, Brown put the slaves of the hostages at risk. They had no warning before Brown gave them weapons which immediately made them the enemies of the hostages and townspeople. Although this is true, when some of his men were surrendering Brown did not try to stop them.
ReplyDeleteThe major reason I felt pity for John Brown and his men in Part II was because of the way the townspeople acted towards them. The people spat in the face of Brown's dying men and even went as far as cutting off "gruesome souvenirs" of the corpses. Although the people were understandably in panic, this was not the right thing to do. They blamed Brown for the death of their people even though they killed his people as well and rejected his peace offerings twice. Sinn said he found the town in a sate of "drunken mayhem" which was not the safest or most effective way of dealing with Brown and his men.
After reading part II, I see Brown as the farthest thing from a terrorist. He didn't enter Harper's Ferry with the intention of killing innocent civilians. In fact, Brown had come to Harper's Ferry solely to "free slaves and intended to hurt no one, unless met with resistance." Like Madison and Laura have said, I fail to see how Brown expected the people of Harper's Ferry to sit in silence while their slaves are forcibly seized from them. If Brown was truly a terrorist, he would have marched into Harper's Ferry and murdered each individual he set eyes on. Brown was a hero who fought until the end, encouraging his men to do the same under heavy gunfire. I was amazed with Brown's audacity in the final moments before his capture. He could have easily killed himself before being captured to avoid the consequences, but he did no such thing.
ReplyDeleteBrown displayed total composure while the country demanded answers for his attack. With the gallows staring him full in the face, "no sign of weakness was exhibited." Brown used this time of constant interrogation to his advantage, making his motives understood by all. Brown, a man with so much to say about the wrongdoings of slavery, finally had an audience to hear him.
Part II had many interesting moments and details regarding the planning and execution of John Brown’s plan at Harper’s Ferry. Brown’s extreme devotion to his cause is evident even up to the moment he is captured. He was a ruthless leader, demanding that his men always act in a proper manner and uphold the highest view of respect in the public’s eyes. This is extremely hard to do however, when slave owners are suddenly having their slaves taken from them. When regarding his role as a terrorist or hero, it is now clear that he was not a full-on terrorist, neither a hero. He was just a man trying to make a difference, and his efforts proved to be beneficial in the beginning, and then turned to acts of violence. Brown’s main goal, “was to free the slaves—not to make war on the people”. This plan was to free slaves without using violence and was not necessarily counting on the resistance of the people. As others have stated, I find it difficult to believe that slave owners would simply stand aside while Brown freed their slaves. Brown had to have known that his plan had a strong possibility of a negative result. I agree with Griffin in that Brown showed extreme nerve as the nation demanded answers for what had occurred. Even after Harper’s Ferry he stood by his actions as an attempt to free people from the horrific life of slavery.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading part II, I'm left with mixed emotions. While I do genuinely respect and appreciate Browns unflinching determination and valiant efforts, I still do not feel that his means were morally justifiable. In fact, I found Brown and his troop's mission rather selfish. Families were torn apart by this battle, children were left without their fathers, and wives without their husbands. It seems unfair to place such a heavy burden on families during an extremely difficult time economically and socially. While this statement neglects the cause of the battle itself, for such religious people, I would never imagine anything could outweigh family loyalties. Yes, slavery was a terribly unjust and inhumane practice, but to me it seems that there were many alternative, practical ways of solving the problem. Fighting fire with fire never creates peace, and to fight this fire, I do not think violence was the correct choice. By no means am I a pacifist, but for such a universally dominant practice, the attack on Harpers Ferry did not seem to be the best method of rebellion. Personally, I would think that someone like Lee would laugh at the efforts of Brown. His plan was poorly executed and almost pathetic, not to be too harsh! Also, my last slightly misanthropic comment would be that I myself can't seem to trust Browns intentions. It doesn't make sense to me why one would dedicate his entire life to such a bewildering cause, knowing that it would be the cause of his death. I can sense some ulterior motives driving Brown, whether it be fame or glory... I don't think abolition was his main incentive. By the way, did anyone else find it ironic that the first person to die in battle was an African American? It seems to me like a sign from some existential being that the attack on Harpers Ferry was not the best choice..
ReplyDeleteWhile by this point in the book, it is hard to argue that Brown was a terrorist, as Laura said, he did not want his men to use violence unless absolutely necessary. However, Part II shows that Brown was a misguided hero. Brown seemed absorbed by hatred of the South more than love for his cause. He seemed more determined to kill than actually help the slaves, as he never did warn them of his plans. Brown also sent mixed signal. For instance, he believed in strict moral behavior, which he inherited through his Calvinist upbringing, but his deep hatred of the South caused him to act violently. People were also confused of his intentions when one of his men killed a black man, Heyward Shepherd, because he said he wished to save the blacks from slavery. If Brown had been more direct with his men about his plans, however misguided, maybe more would have understood him.
ReplyDeleteI think Part II also exposed the deeper problems concerning Brown's plans. In Part I, it was revealed that Brown did not tell his plans to many, and those to whom he did tell his plans of attacking the South, such as Frederick Douglass, doubted him. This secretive tendency led to an experienced set of soldiers who did not even know what they were supposed to do. Brown would bring people into his grand scheme, such as his son's wives, and then leave them in the dark. Even Kagi, his second-in-command, could not get an answer back from Brown when he asked if they should retreat. Maybe if he had listened to others, (that a valley is a bad place to make camp, or that the slaves would not rise with him) he would have acted more rashly, or at least carried out his attack more successfully.
Once I finished part II, I realized my original thought of Brown had changed. Initially, I saw Brown as a terrorist (the Pottawatomie massacre being my leading reason.) Now I see him as more of a vigilante, for his attack on Harper's Ferry was intended to be nonviolent. The attack was an honorable attempt at creating peace.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, in no way shape or form was the attack well planned or executed. Sure, Brown worked on his plans for so many years that one would believe it had to be flawless. But it was far from that. Actually, nearly everything went wrong and that is why I am left confused. Why did Brown ignore the idea that maybe he wouldn't be rallied with or that he wasn't in an ideal place for defense? Maybe his appreciation for religion or pride in his cause blocked some of his thinking but does anyone have an idea as to why he was so strategically inept?
Part II was the utmost revealing of John Brown's character and intentions. As honorable as his actions seem to make him, however, i find that his erroneous plan was on the verge of suicidal. A true heroic gentleman would not have almost carelessly waasted the lives of his followers and even family members. Brown is starting to come across as a lunatic who is disillusioned about his attack being successful. Whether it be Brown's unbelievable composure in the face of death, or his mistaken confidence in his plan, he acted in true heroic fashion as he was demanded of answers.
ReplyDeleteAfter finishing Part II, like many others, I would not consider John Brown a terrorist. Throughout this part, I was surprised how John Brown never lost sight of his mission and did not switch from an honorable leader to a killing lunatic. His goal from the beginning was not to punish Southerners for their sins, but to free the slaves. John Brown clearly ordered his men to not start the bloodshed, and to fight back if met with resistance. His public image mattered greatly to him, since he did not want to be seen as the enemy, so the public would not associate his name with the killing of innocent townspeople, but with ridding the nation of slavery. I do agree with Hillman, that it is perplexing that John Brown would not consider the possibility of the townspeople fighting back against midnight invaders who threatened the Southerners’ way of life. I think he must have known bloodshed was inevitable, but continued to pursue his men into Harpers Ferry, even with a slim chance of return.
ReplyDeleteBrown differentiates himself from most abolitionists who believe in moral uplift as the way to end slavery. Brown believes something startling is what the nation needs, and is willing to put his devotion to fighting for the freedom of slaves above his own life. He knew that the raid of Harpers Ferry was his only chance to spark tensions between the North and South, and the only way to make the abolishment of slavery a nation wide topic.
Right off the bat I agree with Althea, Part II had a very different tone of writing as well as a different focus. I thought that Horwitz took a much more favorable tone to Brown, still portraying him more as a man who wanted to make a statement but a much less bloodthirsty one. What I thought was a striking difference was how Brown ordered his men to not kill unless it was absolutely necessary, a shocking juxtaposition next to the Brown who was described as impatient for action and ready at any moment to unholster his pistol. His actions during the siege of Harper's Ferry mixed his fanaticism with gentlemanly conduct and an unmovable demeanor. I feel that Part II shows just how committed Brown is to the abolitionist cause and leaves me wondering if he is crazy or if he truly is willing to carry out the word of God even if it means fighting to the last man, which I am sure Brown would have done. I think though, that Brown's ideals had gotten the better part of his judgement when it came to executing his plan. As it was described, there were only about 50 slaves for Brown to free while a neighboring county with a population of thousands had a substantially larger amount of slaves for liberating. If the raid was to get more supplies, why not a simple robbery or smuggling that would not end in a siege with the Marines coming to intervene? Brown knew fully what he was doing and I believe that the raid was for shock value as he described to Frederick Douglass. An attack on federal soil which was fairly close the national capitol as well as taking a relative of George Washington hostage was sure to thrust Brown and his cause to the forefront of the American people.
ReplyDeleteI also thought the more specific focus on an isolated event gave a different perspective on Brown and his men. Part I spanned over years and years of time while this part focused on the magnum opus of Brown's work as well as the preparation leading up to it. I believe this is why we feel more sympathy for Brown since we get to know him, his men, and his cause much more personally. Over the course of the 32 hour battle Brown refused to waiver even when the fight was basically over. What I did think was the most ironic part of the book so far was when the slaves were released and given weapons, contrary to Brown's theory, they were the ones who wanted to fight the least, fearing summary execution at the hands of the white mob. Even if Brown had escaped, that would have put a mortal blow in his plans since he was relying on most of his support from slaves willing to fight. All of these shortfalls as well as Brown's refusal to acknowledge them during the battle make me think that his greatest weakness is his tunnel vision. He can only focus on a few things at a time but fails to see the larger picture, such as how he was able to hold the armory yet did not give orders to his men in the surrounding positions.
In part II, we see Brown's long-awaited plan launched into action. Brown carries out his mission, and it becomes evident that he was more focused on sending a message than actually executing his plan. When the battle is explained in such a detailed manner, it seems as though Brown knew that he and his men had no real chance of getting out alive. This plays into the perspective of Brown as an intentional martyr for the cause. He seems to think that by showing his willingness to die for the cause, he will have more of an impact on the abolitionist movement. It is for this reason that I believe he makes sure that he and his men are honorable and treat their prisoners and innocent people as kindly as possible. To me, it was striking how Brown was able to remain humane and steadfast to his ideals in the face of such commotion. He stayed strong to the end, never wavering or showing any intentions of reasonable surrender.
ReplyDeleteBrown's willingness to spare lives brings up an interesting point to the argument of weather or not he was a terrorist. His cause was noble, his commitment unwavering, and his bravery unmatched. These factors would lead many (including myself) to believe that he was no such terrorist. There is always the counterargument, however, that Brown willingly and intentionally took innocent American lives. Part II calls that theory into question, as it shows how he tried so hard to avoid killing anyone who was not combative and treat his prisoners as well as e could. This to me proves Brown to be a warrior and a hero not a terrorist.
For all of Brown’s planning and preparation it seems his failure of his attack to spark a revolution was well deserved and could have been expected. For the many days spent in an attic without proper training, Brown should not have expected much when the time came to launch the raid. He also should have listened to Frederick Douglass and never commenced the attack in the first place but that is somewhat of an unreasonable expectation. The point when some of Brown's men fled and were mercilessly slaughtered by the townspeople was recoiling; the townspeople had the upper hand in the situation. Although, they have to be given some leniency as their town was under siege, they could have easily captured the fleeing men instead of executing and mutilating the black soldiers. When held up in the armory, it was foolish that Brown believed he was in a position to bargain. Lee's swift and crushing response demonstrated how little of a threat Brown posed and how even if his attack was successful he had little chance beyond Harper’s Ferry. As for whether Brown is a terrorist or not, I still will stick with the idea that it is a matter of perspective.
ReplyDeleteThe absurdity of John Brown’s plan is apparent in part two of Midnight Rising, with the savage raid on Harpers Ferry. It seems that Brown did not intend to leave Harpers Ferry alive. However, he did not reveal this to his men as he knowingly led them to their deaths. Horwitz notes how Brown stayed in the town for far too long to reasonably believe that he was going to have any chance of escape. The incompetence of Brown’s forces also shows as the town’s people retaliate and force most of his men into the armory. Fredrick Douglas’s belief that Brown’s raid on Harpers Ferry destined for failure turned out to be accurate. The gruesome nature of the period is shocking as the town’s people mutilate the corpse of Dangerfield Newby, cutting off his ears for souvenirs. Although Brown’s raid seems to share the ironic nature of Turner’s and Pottowanimie in the fact that more Blacks are killed, Fredrick Douglas describes the raid best, “If John Brown did not end the war that ended slavery, and he did at least begin the war that ended slavery.”
ReplyDeleteIn the attack on Harper’s Ferry John Brown proves himself to be a leader, as Grace mentioned. That being said he is not a very good one. Brown continually refused to listen to others opinions and was never swayed by others arguments as to why the mission into Harper’s Ferry was too dangerous. I was surprised by Brown’s stubbornness and naivety. He seemed to believe he could simply free the slaves in Harper’s Ferry and dictate terms to the enemies because he had taken prominent citizens hostage. He also did not seem disturbed by the fact that the most of the country would be against him and that they would most likely be outnumbered. Because of this I do not view his actions as entirely heroic. While Brown was fighting to free slaves, an honorable and noble cause, he did not thoroughly plan out the attack and put himself and his men in more danger because of this.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Lindsey, I have to disagree. I still think that John Brown is a terrorist. While he had good intentions, he still invaded a peaceful town and took citizens as hostages. This behavior is not that of a hero, but a terrorist who uses terror to achieve their goals.
Finishing Part II, I have concluded that, in my mind, John Brown was not a terrorist. While he did stage a raid and take hostages, he fervently insisted that he did not kill anyone unless completely and utterly necessary. Brown followed through on this promise; while a few lives were taken unnecessarily, the lives were not lost as a result of Brown's direct orders. The treatment of the hostages also convinced me of Brown's honest intentions. The hostages were treated relatively well and only even taken so their slaves could be freed. John Brown even went out of his way to provide breakfast for the hostages as well as his men. Although Brown's intentions were honest, many lives were lost in the raid at Harpers Ferry. As Governor Henry Wise said, "[Brown] is a fanatic... but firm, and truthful, and intelligent."
ReplyDeletePart II, as Davis and Althea mentioned, painted John Brown in a much more amicable light, going into detail about his family and leadership. It also seems to paint the townspeople of Harpers Ferry as less likable. The deaths of Brown's men by the townspeople are described in the most savage, gruesome way possible. From their point of view, however, they were heroically protecting their town from savage abolitionist invaders. Going through the previous comments, I notice that there is wide agreement after reading Part II that John Brown is not a terrorist. Perhaps this view can be attributed to the writing style of Part II painting John Brown as brave and honest.
I too, have been thinking about the writing style of this book. I didnt notice it so much in Part I, perhaps it is because Part I supported my opinion more, but Part II definately paints Brown in a different light, showing a bit more of the savior and less of the saboteur. I believe this was due more to the change in information given, than any change in Brown's character. Despite the slight change in tone of Part II, I still see Brown as a religious fanatic, hellbent on completing and being successful in at least one of the endevors he put forth in his life. This opinion is based entirely on how I have interpreted Brown as a person. and has nothing to do with his time period or his ultimate goals. Just because the road is paved with good intentions does not justify all action taken on the journey.
DeleteFurthering the discussion of Horwitz's writing tyle however, I would like to complement him on his ability to write a decisive biography, without making it biased. I have read biographies in the past which have been ruined by the author's inability to come to a conclusion on any aspects of the history of the person he/she is writing about. My only complaints about this book, would be that sometimes the story is bogged down by too much only marginally pertinent information, and that Horwitz doesn't directly source many of his quotes. This is especially frustrating when he quotes Brown based not on his letters, which Brown personally wrote, but on things he said to his men/family. As was shown in Part I, in reference to the masacre, Brown's family and soldiers are willing to change their stories, in an effort to change how Brown may be viewed by the public. I know this can go both ways, and any media references during the time will be biased as well, but it is difficult to make a concrete decision on the question of weither Brown is a terrorist or hero, without understanding how he, his family, his men, and the people of the time saw him.
One thing that strikes me as odd, and yet also alludes to John Brown's possible mental illness, is how many of Brown's plans seem to contradict each other. On one hand, Brown makes extensive plans for a drawn out campaign of guerrilla warfare. This includes the maps and plans for mountain hideouts and bunkers, as well as the pikes to arm the newly freed slave population. But as the day of the attack draws near, his plans seem laughable, with no possibility of the drawn out campaign that brown had hoped for. Brown seals the fate of his plan with his decisions during the battle, such as not defending their only escape route, the bridge, and staying holed up in the armory instead of staying mobile as originally planned. Was this simply the folly of an ill prepared leader, or did Brown intend to die at Harper's Ferry all along? It is suggested in the book that Brown wanted to send a message, not survive. If that is the case though, why did Brown use so much of their time and money preparing for his war? My best guess is that at some point prior to the raid, Brown realized his plan was doomed but was too far along in his plans to delay any longer. Brown was probably at Kennedy farm when he made the decision to go ahead with the raid knowing it was doomed. This would explain Brown's lack of motivation during the fight to stay alive and win the fight.
ReplyDeleteAs previously stated John Browns true character and leadership skills are outlined in Part II. When Brown leads his attack he intends it to be peaceful using his guns and hold of the armory as a scare tactic to get his slavery rebellion underway. He enters the town saying his intentions are not to harm anyone, showing his peaceful and in a way heroic side of himself. After a townsperson is shot people do not believe his intentions of peace are true. When things get helter-skelter and his men are being killed, his heroic ways are thrown out the window. In the beginning Browns leadership encourages his men forward and ready to follow their leader. He moves away from these peaceful heroic tactics into an evil last ditch effort to achieve his now impossible goal. His holding of citizens raises many questions of his peaceful intentions with the townspeople not knowing his next rash move. After his last effort to achieve his dream and his capture it left me with many unanswered questions. Why was the attack not planned better? Couldn't a man of his popularity and record bring a bigger and more powerful force? Wouldn't he have known the plan was suicidal with the size of his force? In the end I believe John Brown to be a hero, but also crazy. His actions were intended to be peaceful with him striving to fulfill his belief about slavery, but him attacking with such a small force is puzzling and questions his sanity.
ReplyDeleteJohn Brown is a complicated character whose motives are obscured by his solemn face and rigid upbringing. While in the engine house with his hostages, Brown would continually explain his cause to them, making it clear that he has no intent of hurting others, but to only free the slaves. Like other comments had stated above, Brown was sending mixed messages and I think he was being delusional. How could Brown possibly believe that no one would oppose him and he could take all the slaves away without a fight? It's just too outrageous.
ReplyDeleteBrown's Calvinist upbringing supported pacifism and devotion, but it is mitigated by the amount of violence in the raid on Harper's Ferry. However, in direct contrast to this, the author describes the raid in such a light to make it seem like the Southerners were barbaric and had no right to treat the admirable John Brown in such a way. The dessication of Dangerfield Newby's body compared to John Brown ordering breakfast for his hostages is a great example of how the author, Tony Horwitz, displays Brown as being brave and respectful. It's hard to decide what John Brown is at this point, but I don't feel like he is insane. He has motives for staying in the armory, but I can't tell what they are. Perhaps he wishes to be a martyr, strengthening his followers and Abolitionism, comparable to other similar figures like Jesus.
John Brown's main plan of action, seizing Harpers Ferry in order to arm the slaves and create an uprising, was at last realized on July 4, 1859 when he moved into the Kennedy Farmhouse and started to set up camp. As I read Tony Horwitz's retelling of Brown's preparations at the Kennedy Farm before his raid, I could not help but agree with the people of Harpers Ferry in calling John Brown a terrorist. Knowing the circumstances under which Brown was leasing the farm and what his plan was, I compared Brown and his gang to a terrorist sleeper cell waiting for the opportune moment to strike (they even had John Cook as a mole in Harpers Ferry, spying on everyone and learning their weaknesses). However, my feelings quickly changed after I read what Brown said to his men the night before the raid: “You all know how dear life is to you, and how dear your life is to your friends. Do not, therefore, take the life of any one if you can possibly avoid it; but if it is necessary to take life in order to save your own, then make sure work of it.” (129) I would call Brown more of a hero or, as Patrick said, a vigilante, than I would call him a terrorist for he did value human life and knew that the moment he killed an innocent his cause would be distorted. I do believe that he was not insane (as was proven in the first part of Midnight Rising) nor was he a terrorist. His good intentions were shrouded by the inadequacy of his plan that left his lieutenants struggling for survival and the townspeople of Harpers Ferry thinking they were under attack.
ReplyDeleteHow then did Brown, who had spent months preparing for this raid, let so many civilians get killed, injured and shot at? How did he manage to get his whole force either killed or cornered? It was poor planning on his part. Although Brown needed to keep his plan shrouded in secrecy as to ensure that he would not be discovered and executed, his plan was flawed. One major flaw that I saw was that once he had taken the Harpers Ferry armory, he did not give any notice to slaves to rise up and rebel. None of the slaves knew about this, and so there was no slave rebellion to reinforce his men. Instead, Brown walked right into a fire engine house style trap. How did he overlook the flaws in his plan? Was he so determined to succeed that once he had settled on the basics he never bothered to double check his plan? I think that possibly his religious fanaticism effected his judgement and made him believe that no matter what happened his faith in his plan (and his faith in God) would guide him and his men to safety and ensure the success of his mission. However that was not the case, and the man who had worked so hard to free his “fellow-men” (24) saw his plan die right before his eyes.
After reading Part II, it becomes clear that John Brown certainly does not display that characteristics of a terrorist. Throughout his raid on Harper's Ferry, Brown makes it clear that his goal is to free slaves and not to kill. He repeatedly tells his prisoners that although he is holding them at gunpoint, he does not mean them any harm, and wishes to avoid bloodshed if possible. Brown's treatment of his prisoners says a lot about his character. Given his devotion to abolitionism and his fierce opposition to slavery, you would think that he would be angry with the slave owners for being a part of the particular institution. John Brown's peaceful attitude toward the white southerners shows the strong morals that guide him. The fact that he only wishes to grant freedom to the slaves, and has no desire to take revenge on the slave owners for their indiscretions shows that Brown is not a terrorist. He probably acquires his ability to not seek vengeance from his devout christianity. Brown simply does what he believes God wants him to do, which is to end the system of slavery, and nothing more.
ReplyDeletePart II showed that John Brown was ultimately committed to achieving his goal at Harper's Ferry of liberating the local slaves and arming them to support an insurrection. Both terrorists and heroes are committed to goals, their differences lie in the manner of pursuit of these goals. If John Brown the terrorist aimed to raid Harper's Ferry to support a slave rebellion, he would have done so with a different mindset; one of utter control. This would constitute slaughter, power, and carnage. His actions would have been more provoked and intentional, as he wiped out all shown oppression. Likewise, if John Brown the hero had aimed to seize Harper's Ferry, he would have entered more prepared. He would have aimed to make his actions seem humane and justified, that what he was doing was not meant to harm or kill. Instead, people like the frightened passengers on the train, or the citizen's of Harper's Ferry fell into a panic when they heard rumors of Pottawatomie Brown with 700 armed slaves killing everyone as they raided the federal armory. His intentions and ultimate goal may now seem right and justified, causing us to treat him as a martyr, but in the moment, his actions were sudden and powerful. No less, he attacked property of the United States, which led to the dispatch of Marines, further elevating the situation. The ways in which Brown conducted himself and his men during the operation were chivalric and noble given the circumstances. Their treatment of hostages and conduct during negotiations showed that they believed in their cause and that they were civil. Their flaw was that they ultimately struck at a target in the midst of a very unforgiving audience. In the middle of a slave state, they attacked a town, killed its mayor, and holed up on federal property. Intentions now are surpassed by perception; the men in the town now are a threat and are killing people. I believe that John Brown was a man who believed what he was doing was just and approved by God, and conducted himself in a manner that proved so. However, once he launched a surprise attack on slave state land, against federal property, he became an enemy that needed to be subdued. He is thus a hero in his own eyes, and those of many historians, but a terrorist in the eyes of the people at the time, which are the ones that matter.
ReplyDeletePart II of Midnight Rising certainly focuses on building Brown's character up to the assault on Harper's Ferry. While it can be argued that Brown's did not take the necessary steps to properly prepare himself and his men for the actual assault, Brown does show an unwavering determination to his cause, emphasized by his willingness to sacrifice towards his god-given goal of defeating slavery. However, this failed to change my opinion on the classification of Brown's character as a terrorist. As has been mentioned above, Brown was in many ways a religious extremist and threat to society in the eyes of the people of Harper's Ferry. He did take hostages, he did kill opposition, and he did seize one of the largest government armories - within close proximity to Washington D.C. He caused confusion and Mayhem, enough so that the US government had to send a large outfit of troops to combat his raiding party. Although Brown's intent was benign and although he carried out his raid in a chivalrous manner, at the time he and his men certainly posed as a violent and aggressive threat to the general public as well as the United States Government. This, in addition to Brown's actions up to the actual raid on Harper's Ferry, are clear evidence as to why Brown can only be classified as a terrorist, even if in our eyes he was a "good terrorist".
ReplyDeleteThroughout Part I and II i have been torn between seeing Brown as both a terrorist and a hero, but Ben brings up an interesting point of a "good terrorist". Terrorism is the use of violence and threats to intimidate, especially for political purposes. From strict definition, setting aside Brown's intentions, i think we can all agree "terrorism" was essentially his foremost tactic. Instead of peaceful means, he was one to take action, and he used violence to assert his ideas of antislavery. Terrorism is not always done out of hate, as we can see in Brown's case, he used terrorism to promote what most Americans consider to be a good cause.
DeleteAfter reading part II, my view of John Brown has completely changed. I originally thought that he was a hero and wasn’t anything close to a terrorist. Now, I am very conflicted. It’s obvious that this mission was a failure and he is not a hero but I can’t decide whether or not he is a terrorist. One could argue that he is a terrorist because he planned the raid and he indirectly started a chain reaction of deaths. But, one could also say he is not a terrorist because he himself didn’t want to kill anyone, told his men to only kill in self-defense, and showed kindness to his hostages. Whether or not he is a terrorist, I am sure that he is a little crazy. As a result of this insanity, his actions reflect those of a martyr. He doesn’t care about the slaves anymore, he just wants to complete the “mission” he believes God gave him. However, he is willing to stand and fight for this mission, even risking his own life to do so. Many people, including his second in command and a freed slave, told him that invading Harpers Ferry was a bad idea. He didn’t listen and in the end they were right. Almost half of Brown’s men died within the first 48 hours, including two of his sons. Instead of backing out when he had a chance and saving his life and the lives of his remaining men, he decided to stay and fight for what he believed in. Any sane person would put the lives of their men over anything else, but Brown had lost his mind in the mission and decided to risk everything for the cause. Though his mind was narrowed by his beliefs, he was loyal and was willing to die for them, making him a martyr.
ReplyDeleteI don’t see John Brown as a hero because, at least for now, he didn’t do anything except get people killed. That’s why I’m conflicted on whether he is a terrorist or not. I know this raid sparked the Civil War but in part II there is no immediate reaction throughout the rest of the country. How long will it take for people to react to what had just happened?
I was talking with Drew Welch the other day on the topic of how to "classify" John Brown as a hero, terrorist, etc. We came to the conclusion that anyone who uses violence as a means of obtaining victory can be considered a terrorist. However, Brown was no terrorist, but also far from a hero. At the end of the day, he, as Henry Wise said, was "a fanatic, vain and garrulous, but firm, and truthful, and intelligent" (185). I do not agree with Wise's other ideas, but this quote stuck out to me. He refered to Brown neither as a criminal nor a terrorist, but as a highly intelligent and courageous religious extremist. Even though Brown had a "good cause" for his invasion of the armory, it is very difficult to call him anything but a zealot.
ReplyDeleteOn top of this, Brown did not appear phased that his campaign into "Africa" was stopped short. "Brown said he was by no means annoyed; on the contrary he was glad to be able to make himself and his motives clearly understood" wrote a reporter (183). I think that this idea of sending a message defines Brown's evolved intentions by the end of the raid. In the last stand in the engine house, he did not fear death but welcomed the publicity of his actions. This also is interesting, as this mentality is similar in both heroes AND terrorists. Maybe the third part will reveal more details about the aftermath of Brown's invasion, potentially giving us a better idea of what his intentions really were, if he wanted to start the Civil War in such large proportions.
After reading Part II, John Brown showed himself as more of a hero rather than a terrorist in my opinion. Throughout the 24 hour span of their plan unfolding at Harper's Ferry, the book goes into immense detail of each persons role in Brown's militia. Brown, along with the others involved in his plan announce repeatedly their common goal to abolish slavery to their captors. Brown also states multiple times that his goal was not to hurt or kill anyone on the way to achieve this goal but to rather focus on the slaves long deserved freedom. The books shift in focus from Brown's religious extremism to more of a heroic push for abolition makes Brown look more heroic rather than more like a terrorist.
ReplyDeletePart II of Midnight Rising gives us a greater inside to the thoughts and motivations of John Brown. In part one, Brown could have been viewed as a ruthless abolitionist killing anybody who got in his way. However, part two clearly shows how Brown was determined not to take any innocent lives. This thought was expressed in Brown's speech to his men before the raid. To me, this idea of saving as many people as he can draws a clear distinction between a terrorist and a hero. Another trait of Brown that makes him a hero is his respect and honor he shows toward his prisoners. He allows some of the prisoners to go home and tell their families that they are all right and he provides hot meals for them. All of these actions clearly show that John Brown was not out to terrorize the people of the south and that all he wanted was for the slaves to be set free.
ReplyDeleteOne thing I find interesting is what Brown ultimately wanted to accomplish with this raid. Brown's goal was to topple the U.S. government and set up his own constitution in the mountains of Virginia. All of this would have been set off by a raid of an armory. This plan was completely unrealistic and Brown had been told that it probably would not have worked. So then why did he go through with it? Maybe Brown's main goal was to just create higher level of attention to slavery and set an example of how people should rebel against it. If this was his actual goal he certainly succeeded.
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.
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’s actions in part II proved he was not a merciless terrorist. Brown immediately informed both his men and his captives that his intention was not to kill. As a faithful Calvinist Brown acknowledged the value of life, and did not wish to take it from anyone, unless forced to do so as a last resort. Brown showed much decency toward the hostages ensuring they were fed as well as possible, and even allowing one man to return home briefly to let his family know he was safe. As others have mentioned, Brown was very honorable in staying true to his mission. He stood by his one goal of abolishing slavery as opposed to simply killing all southerners who opposed his views. John Brown maintained his composure when he had no chance of victory. Brown stayed devoted to the cause even when some of his men abandoned him. He refused to surrender or make negotiations when the opportunity came. Even after being severely wounded and then captured, Brown used his interrogation session as an opportunity to further convey his opinions and beliefs.
ReplyDeleteJohn Brown’s readiness to fight back only angered his enemies more. Brown’s willingness to both spare the lives of his own men and to slaughter innocent people show a lapse in his heroic character. Despite this, his dedication to the noble abolitionist cause prevents the possibility for him to be classified as a true terrorist.
I believe that Part Two: Into Africa really shed a different light on Brown. The author's stance upon Brown changes. From the beginning, especially in the prologue, Horwitz' interest within Brown was made clear. I feel the first part of this book really shows in high detail the evidence which the reader may be able to clarify in his or her eyes that Brown is a hero, terrorist, madman, etc. I believe the author's fascination is more evident within the second part, and therefore makes the judgement more difficult since Horwitz often goes into high detail about the minor details (overall I found this to be one of the most difficult obstacles reading this section). There is a lot more focused not only on Brown's meticulous planning, but also on the other members of his party. This shift, I believe, caused me to look more closely at the whole of the plan and question whether Brown (as Drew Sigler pointed out above) truly wanted to die, or whether his planning (all throughout his life) was seriously flawed.
ReplyDeleteBrown's fight for abolition and his regard for human life are noble causes. And throughout the second part of the novel he didn't seem as ruthless and tyrannical as in the previous section. He seemed to be more careful and calculating. This wisdom seemed to tone Brown's madness. However I still believe that Brown was a terrorist.
In part II Horowitz sheds a more positive light on Brown. He portrays Brown as an enthusiastic and thoughtful hero for the anti-slavery cause rather than the maniacal religious figure seen in part II. However, Brown's actions are still shockingly similar to that of the despised terrorists of the Middle East. He rented a barn and used it to train his small militia while taking measures to avoid the public eye in preparation for his strike. Brown stresses to his prisoners that he means no harm, but he can not be so naive to think that there will be no violence. In this it is hard to determine weather Brown is simply insane and so far disillusioned with reality that he really believes he can hold several prestigious figures hostage and simply walk away with a handful of freed slaves, or if Brown is once again putting on a show.
ReplyDeleteWhile reading part II, my previous opinion of John Brown being a hero rather than a terrorist was confirmed. I feared that Brown would resort to killing those who were proslavery rather than focusing on freeing the slaves, but he never lost sight of his true goal. He makes a point to tell his men that this is not a mission to kill by saying: "do not, therefore, take the life of any one if you can possibly avoid it; but if it is necessary to take life in order to save your own, then make sure work of it" (129). While many recruits were losing faith in his mission due to the numerous false starts and lack of money, Brown continued to show his determination.
ReplyDeleteAlso, as Mia mentioned, John Brown did not lose all hope when he knew the victory he had hoped for was out of reach. Instead, Brown continued to fight but in a different way. After being captured he answered all questions while continuing to promote the abolitionist cause.
Part II was incredibly helpful in deciding whether to label Brown as a terrorist or a hero, because it provided insight into how he interacted with both his opponents, and his troops. Rather than resorting to violence against those who supported slavery, Brown chose to explain his cause. It was repeatedly emphasized that Brown's intention was not to resort to killing innocent civilians, but to focus on promoting the abolition of slavery. Violence was only intended to be used as a last resort, for self defense. For the first time, Brown shows himself as a leader to his troops and continues to inspire his men even when it was evident that victory was not a possible outcome. Even after the battle is lost, and Brown is in custody he continues to "promote the abolitionist cause", as Maddie had said, which is a trait of a great leader and a true hero.
ReplyDeletePreviously, I was undecided whether to label John Brown a hero or a terrorist due to his ruthless acts of violence. After reading Part II, I have decided to label Brown as a hero. As many others have posted, after gaining more insight on John Brown’s thoughts and motivations, I deem his violent actions to be heroic. Also, throughout Part II, Horwitz repeatedly states how John Brown’s intentions were not to murder innocent civilians. Instead, violence was only to be used as a last resort (against civilians opposed Brown’s cause to abolish slavery). Agreeing with Chris, I feel that in Part II, Horwitz portrays John Brown differently than in Part I. In Part I, Horwitz portrays Brown as extremely religious and somewhat fanatical about his cause (which could categorize him as a terrorist). In Part II, Brown is portrayed as caring and heroic. I feel that these qualities are truly shown when at the end of Part II when Brown is being questioned by Senator Mason and he states, “I hold that the golden rule, do unto others as you would that others should do unto you, applies to all who would help others to gain their liberty” (186).
ReplyDeleteAfter reading part II it became clear the Brown did not intend to purposely use violence unless it became necessary for his cause. He did not have specific intentions to hurt people unless he was faced with resistance. This displays him as more of a hero than a terrorist because he was more focused on freeing the slaves than causing violence in Harpers Ferry. Agreeing with what many have stated above, I believe that part II displays Brown as more of a hero than terrorist. However I do wonder how he planned to free the slaves without facing any resistance from the people in Harpers Ferry. Did he think that they were just going to let their slaves go? Did he plan on being met with no resistance from the townspeople? Even though he was faced with resistance he never once used unnecessary violence or intended to harm people when violence was not necessary. The entire time he was completely devoted to freeing the slaves and nothing else. Even after his capture he was still devoted to his cause and was never seen as being disloyal similar to many of his men. Going off of what Laura and Lindsey mentioned above Brown’s devotion never waivered even after his capture. Many of his men gave up hope as soon as they were captured, but Brown did not act in this way. Part II definitely confirmed Brown as a hero rather than a terrorist in my mind.
ReplyDeleteThroughout part two, I found it disappointing that John Brown continually put his plan before the well- being of his family members. In the beginning of the novel Brown used his family for aid and resources, however, as the raid on Harpers Ferry drew closer he tore some of his sons away from their young families. Not only this, Brown knew he was destined to die fighting for this cause and lead his sons into battle knowing that they could have the same fate. Although John Brown was trying to end the horrific mistreatment of slaves, I think it was selfish to put this before his family, all of whom did so much for him. In my opinion while Brown was trying to free slaves from bondage, at the same time he was imprisoning his own family who did not share the same ardent beliefs towards raiding Harpers Ferry. He should have recruited more forceful men rather than pressuring his sons many of whom had weary feelings about participating in the attack. Does anyone else think this was selfish or was it necessary for Brown to recruit as many men as possible?
ReplyDeleteAfter reading Part II, I still do not believe that John Brown was a hero in any way. I believe that his faith and devotion to God and his cause, completely blinded him from seeing the reality of his situation. Eighteen men passionate (to the point of insanity) to one cause versus a heavily guarded and armed town full of (angry) citizens with resources. I find it hard to believe that he didn’t realize the odds were never in his favor. I think he truly believed that eighteen men could liberate the slaves of Harper’s Ferry and take over the rest of the town. Unfortunately for him, this plan failed. A shocking side note was that the first to die for Brown’s cause was a black man. I found that completely ironic. Although Brown displayed much courage and valor, I found he needed to in order to save his reputation and face. He also needed to be the unflinching leader to keep the faith and trust of his very limited “army,” even though some would later abandon him. Brown’s raid, which I found to be a very weak one at that, did not even manage to fulfill its goal. Any slave Brown had liberated during his disoriented attack were returned to bondage once the madness ceased.
ReplyDeleteI’m interested to see now that Brown has been wounded and captured how he will argue his case to the rest of the world. I do not find him innocent and I do not have sympathy for an old man with a vicious mind who’s motto is ‘do or die’. Brown managed to save all his wits after the attack and I’m sure he is capable of making a good argument for himself using God as his witness. As someone mentioned earlier, I too am interested to see how the South will react to Brown’s religious reasonings. Brown may also be considered as a fundamentalist and his contradiction of his religious teachings probably would not attract many admirers. Either way I doubt his story will do him much good for he attacked a proslavery town in the hopes to rid the United States of slavery.
As this portion of the reading consisted of the actual raiding of Harper's Ferry it was easiest to identify Brown as a terrorist. I do admit I often found myself horrified by the brutality of this conspiracy. However I found myself unable to label John Brown as either a terrorist or hero in this section, despite my previous standing. Even after reading classmates posts in hopes of being swayed I only found myself further in limbo. Some called Brown a definite terrorist for his horrific actions, others identified him as a hero for his brilliant intentions, others criticized us for our beliefs and called them wrong. It was those comments that left me most confident in not being able to decide. John Brown wasn't wrong in fighting to free slaves. He was driven by his own Calvinist beliefs that he had grown up on. However by saying that I also found myself agreeing that the federal army which fought against him was not wrong in their intentions either. They fought for a cause that they believed in as well and had grown up on: slavery. I am in no way saying that I believe slavery is morally acceptable, I am however saying that fighting for what you believe in is what America was founded on, and I cannot allow myself to call anybody "wrong" for doing that. There morals being wrong is another situation. But then again neither sides morals were right. There was a scene in which Mayor Beckham had just been brutally shot dead, and in retaliation Hunter kills Thompson in an equally brutal way. This is childish and shows how wrong any form of cruelty is. Terrorism is often looked at from a very narrow view point. Often we only see how horrific being attacked in 9/11 was. Few times do we acknowledge just how horrific our retaliation on these countries is. Despite our success in terminating terrorists we fail to recognize the innocent lives lost there too. We may be heroes to our own country, but we certainly are the terrorists for others. And for this reason I found myself unable to take a standpoint for this section of reading. I may agree with his motive but I certainly do not agree with Brown's methods. As a third party to this event I found that I needed to remain neutral because I understood both sides while also fearing both as well. Maybe the last part of the reading will help sway me, but as of this moment I cannot allow myself to call him either because of my own morals.
ReplyDeleteIn Part II of Midnight Rises, Tony Horwitz displays Brown’s more caring and gentler side. This part of the novel documents his journey into the slaveholding South. His plot to free the slaves consisted of capturing slaveholders and taking them as hostages. Brown, as Danielle mentioned, never meant to injure these hostages. He told one of his prisoners, Arimistead Ball, about his intentions “to free the slaves- not to make war on the people (141).” Brown’s hostages were well cared for. He allowed the hostage’s wives or daughters to prepare food for the prisoners; Brown paid for breakfast for the other hostages who required nourishment.
ReplyDeleteBrown’s true courage is demonstrated by the fact that he never abandoned his commitment, and fought to the very end. Brown’s instinct to stay and fight during the attack of the engine house exhibits his martyr-like behavior. Brown then was tried, and he knew that he would eventually be sentenced to death. Yet he still preached for his cause to end slavery. “You may dispose of me very easily…but this question is still to be settled- this Negro question…the end of that is not yet (187). His crushing defeat at the engine house was not as disabling as it seemed. Although he lost his battle at Harpers Ferry, Brown’s message was received by many people (both abolitionists and slaveholders). Brown’s actions in “Africa” put slaveholders in constant fear of more warfare from driven men who wanted freedom for those in bondage.
As John Brown’s master plan envelops, he shows a lot about himself and how he is truly doing this for the abolishment of slavery. Although he can be seen as a ruthless killer, he is not killing for any personal reasons or vendettas. He treats all his hostages with respect because he did not set out to kill or harm those particular people, instead he believes the only way he can achieve his goal is if serious action is taken. His mercy shows that he is not a terrorist. He sustains a prevalent attitude that he has control over the situation even when it breaks down. Brown shows to be more of a martyr than a terrorist. You get a feeling that he knew his plan wasn’t going to work and that he just wanted to set an extreme example. His willingness to sacrifice his own life for millions of people that he doesn’t know sends a strong message, one that can split a nation.
ReplyDeleteThe attack on Harper's Ferry reaffirms that Brown is both a hero and a terrorist. His raid is a terrorist attack. He targets a federal armory, takes many people hostage, and several men are killed. However, he is still a hero due to the reasons for his attack, ending slavery. Also, his raid is much less violent and abhorrent then the murders at Pottawatomie. Though several men were killed, they were not killed intentionally under Brown's orders. He also treated his hostages graciously, and showed extreme bravery throughout the attack. He still does not seem insane, though his invasion plan has practically no chance of success. It seems his plan for attacking was to send a message, and provide the spark that will actually lead to the end of slavery. The raid may have been an act of terrorism, but it was also an important act of heroism, to finally bring about the end of slavery.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading part two I now believe that Brown is a terrorist. He intentionally invaded the south in order to inflict terror on the people there. It became clear that his mission was no longer to bring the black slaves to safety in the mountains but instead to cause as much chaos as possible. This is evident by the fact that when he was trapped in the Engine House and had no way of escaping or succeeding in a battle he continued to stand his ground at the peril of everyone involved. If his mission had been really to bring slaves to safety why would he endanger them? Brown, stubborn, stayed in the Engine House because he wanted to create a story and to make history—no matter the cost. He knew that his raid would fail and he would not be able to free and arm slaves but to Brown the success of the raid was not important. What Brown actually wanted was to be heard. The only way Brown knew how to communicate his beliefs was through violence and inflicting terror. This method had been instilled upon him as a kid while he was being punished by his father. Brown was able to justify his acts of violence to himself and his family by his extensive knowledge of the Bible. He used passages in the Bible to make his fight into a Holy War much like the Popes during the Crusades. Brown like many modern day terrorists hoped to create an unstable environment that would give his cause an advantage.
ReplyDeleteThe most eye opening aspect of Part II for myself, was the kindness John Brown showed his hostages, and dignity that he displayed after his defeat to his captors. Going back to what Olivia said, Brown never meant to hurt the hostages that day, and tried to make it known to them. He bought them all breakfast, (although some refused to eat it for fear it was poisoned) and even let some see their families. After the fighting was over and Brown was captured by his enemies, he made it clear that he would answer any of the questions they had for him. He was not only polite, but showed no fear when he faced his captors. According to the Richmond Enquirer, when he met Governor Wise, "Brown received him with the uttermost composure, though evidently suffering from his wounds" (185). The Governor later went on to say that although Brown was " a fanatic, vain and garrulous" he was "firm, and truthful, and intelligent" (185). I enjoyed the juxtaposition that Horwitz put into place by showing this likable side of Brown, after examining the violent measures he was willing to go to in Kansas. The detail Horwitz put into the background of the Harper's Ferry raid made me see Brown as more of a person, than as a charter in history. It provided a new element to the story of John Brown that the textbooks I have read in the past did include.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading Part II, I have concluded Brown is not a terrorist. I agree with what Jack Conlin said about Brown being a hero in the eyes of historians but a terrorist in the eyes of the people at the time. As an individual living in twenty-first century America, I believe Brown's cause was a righteous one. Brown wanted to prove a point about what he strongly believed in - all men are equal, and thus, slavery should be abolished because it is immoral. As Katie said, Brown did not set out with the intention of killing innocent people. Although his judgment may at times have been clouded by his ambitions, it is my belief Brown set out with a good intent and carried it out to the best of his ability as circumstances would allow. He showed himself to be a responsible leader and devoted much effort to executing his plan as efficiently as possible. As Emily said, fighting for what you believe in is what America was founded upon. Labeling Brown a terrorist for making such a strong statement about his beliefs seems contradictory to what America stands for. Brown's raid certainly terrorized the people at the time; however, his raid was planned with the intent of drawing public attention to his cause of abolishing slavery. If Brown had not acted as he did, who is to say someone else would not have? In a sense, Brown acted as a catalyst.
ReplyDelete