Midnight Rising, Part III, Chapters 10-Epilogue: They Will Brown Us All
Comment on any aspect of Chapters 10-Epilogue. What were some takeaways you had from the book as whole? Remember, keep it limited to 1-2 paragraphs. You can have an initial post or respond to someone else's post.
Well, I just finished the book, and I must say that it was here that our essay question really seemed to come to the fore. On the one hand, Brown was apparently all-but-universally admired for his candor and bravery in the face of his impending death. On the other, his obsession with martyrdom and violent rebirth remind a modern reader of the no-less brave men who strap bombs to their chests in a war they believe equally just. Also, it seems that many of those who believed Brown a great man were inclined to question his sanity.
What struck me as particularly interesting was the legal side of this. It's sickeningly obvious that Brown couldn't have gotten a fair trial, even if he had wanted one, and there was no group within the system that was impartial enough to help him. Of course, this is much clearer in hindsight, which leads me to wonder whether there are groups in this country that really can't get a fair trial. It doesn't seem like any single issue consumes us the way slavery consumed the politicians and intellectuals of the 1800s, but perhaps that is hopeful naïveté. The other part of it is the attempt on the part of Brown's lawyers to have him declared insane. Today, his objection would have meant nothing, as an insane client's opinion would be ignored and the matter would be decided by a psychological evaluation. Of course, some things, such as the stream of petitions demanding that the sentence be commuted, haven't changed in criminal procedure. And comparing Brown's conduct to that of modern criminals, he strikes me as a terrorist more than ever.
I've been thinking about your comment about controversies consuming us today, and after looking at some things about terrorism and John Brown online, I started thinking about abortion. If you look at it, you may even be able to make the stretch it is divided the same way, i.e. pro-slavery South, free North: pro-life South, pro-choice North. Thoughts? (Sorry, I know this is posted late!)
As Althea mentioned, I think Part III specifically was where the essay question became most evidently controversial. Brown bravely took his death sentence and became a true martyr sacrificing himself to his cause. At the same time, however, Brown provokes a time of terror in the nation that will carry on in sparking the civil war. As I have said before, Brown's mission was not to shed fear onto innocent people in order to impose his beliefs onto others, but, he essentially ended up doing so. It is still hard for me to agree with the fact Brown was a terrorist, again, because of his true desire behind his violence: he did not want to terrorize people as a way to gain power and thus spread his ideas. Brown truly wanted his intense detest for slavery to be heard, and believed violence was the only way to amplify his voice.
Lastly, his trial left me wondering whether or not his end goal to his mission was to sacrifice himself to set an example and further incite abolitionists. He knew he was going to die, but did he purposefully wait it out until the end in order to make a "courageous" performance before his execution? Although a very valiant character, during battle I do not remember reading about any valorous efforts like Brua.
I was thinking about Jennie's point about sacrificing himself to promote his cause and I fully agree with it but I wonder, where does it begin? There are some interesting points made in the trial that may suggest Brown's whole scheme at Harper's Ferry was a suicide mission and was intended to be that way. For example, the numerous copies of the documents regarding the Provisional Government, some left at the Kennedy Farm and others carried with John Brown. Clearly in doing this Brown wants to get his ideas out there and make sure they are preserved. I think once Brown got to trial he takes the opportunity to do the same but I wonder if it was his plan to get to the stand so he can shout his opinions from the rooftops, so to speak. Not a striking amount of evidence to support this claim but certainly enough to make it a valid question. Thoughts?
After finishing the book, as much as I would prefer to call Brown a hero, I think that his true specialty was producing fear in others. After the Pottawatomie Massacre, he remarked, "the killing should so terrorize the proslavery camp as to deter future violence." After the Pottawatomie Massacre, which did nothing but provoke violence, he may have concluded that one great violent conflict could end the issue of slavery once and for all. If so, he executed his raid on Harpers Ferry perfectly. Even though it was not a military success, he evoked the fear that would lead to the Civil War.
This then poses the question, as others have mentioned, whether Brown had ever really intended to incite a large scale slave rebellion as he proclaimed to his followers. Brown might have known that his death would have produced a far greater effect than anything he could have done in his life. In addition to Alex's example about Brown leaving the Provisional Government documents around, a few other things seemed to indicate that he never meant to carry out the plan he pitched at the Kennedy farmhouse. During the raid, Brown didn’t bring nearly enough food to support his men and the slaves that were supposed to join them, neglected to tell blacks in the surrounding area of his intentions, and didn’t relocate from the obvious death trap that he had set for himself in Harpers Ferry. I think it is quite likely that John Brown may have expected his grim, but largely effective, fate.
One of the main points that I have learned from Midnight Rising is that it does not matter what the cause is, it’s how you go about affecting change that matters. Despite the fact that I find John Brown’s cause noble and heroic, I cannot call him a hero. His deliberate attempts to plague the South with fear and the violent attack he orchestrated, labels him as a terrorist in my mind.
I certainly agree that there is enough evidence to support the idea that the Harpers Ferry attack was a mission for John Brown to become a martyr, not necessarily to free slaves. As Hillman and Alex have said, Brown made no attempt to conceal his documents at the Kennedy Farm, carried incriminating papers with him to Harpers Ferry, did not bring nearly enough food for his men, never spread word to slaves in the surrounding area, and most importantly, left the weapons he was supposed to secure from the armory, completely untouched. However, there is one piece of evidence that Horowitz uses to support Brown’s quest for martyrdom which I was unsure about. I do not know if Brown’s refusal to leave Harpers Ferry (after it became obvious that he would never succeed) was because his true goal was to die for the cause, or if it was simply part of his stubborn nature. Thoughts?
I agree with your evaluation of Brown, that he either had to have intentionally planned Harpers Ferry as a suicide mission, or was too stubborn to pull out. However, I believe there are other theories, including believing he was God's chosen one and the Lord would 1. protect him 2. it was his will no matter the turn out. It also could have been he was so sure of his plan, he never believed it could fail, but Brown would have to either be too full of himself and or delusional (which I believe you could argue he was at least one, if not both) to have believed he could storm into Harpers Ferry and take hostages, without any form of retaliation or hitch in his plan.
I, however, think it is most likely a combination of all the above. I believe Brown was a self-righteous, fanatical, extremely religious, morally blinded man, who, by forming an army of young, impreshionable, glory-seeking men, planned to strike terror into the South, by taking hostages and capturing one of the largest sources of weaponry in the United States in the name of abolishing slavery, with the ultimate goal of either starting a violent slave uprising or "martyring" himself and his boys for the cause, whichever worked out. I believe Brown may have had a whole alphabet of plans, and was likely constantly running scenarios, because despite his inability to manage money, he had a vast knowledge of military strategy, and a charisma which he showed a great aptitude in utilizing to get what he wanted. I wouldn't be surprised however, if Brown, no matter the outcome, planned to die in battle. His constant attempt to barter an escape oportunity, shows to me he most likely thought people would find him more of a martyr if he died fighting than being killed via execution.
(Side Comment: I really liked how in Part III Horwitz compares Lincoln and Brown. I believe this was a great way of showing how the means with which one attempts to achieve a goal determines how the action is viewed.)
Upon finishing Midnight Rising, it is clear John Brown’s death did more for his cause than anything he could have done in life. However, I am still unclear as to if Brown fully intended the raid at Harpers Ferry as a suicide mission. As Hillman and Cashel mention, there is much evidence to support Brown knowing he would be defeated at Harpers Ferry, and perhaps he truly knew this was his fate, but I feel there was also a part of him that hoped he would succeed and live to see the day slavery was no more. Perhaps he realized his death would be something far more pivotal in the fight against slavery than any plan he had, and therefore did not sufficiently prepare for the raid at Harpers Ferry. However, I don’t believe this was the initial intention behind the raid, what with the extensive documentation he made and years and years of planning he endured.
To answer Alex’s question, if Brown’s plan were to fail, he desperately wanted to die fighting for his cause, even asking for a “fighting chance” to escape the town once he was surrounded. I think once Brown knew he was not going to die in battle and the opportunity presented itself to explain his intentions and ideas, he took it without hesitation. Despite the apparent eagerness he explained himself with after his capture, it is clear if his plan were to fail, he wanted to die in battle and not on the gallows. Despite his ultimate sacrifice, I am still unsure whether “hero” is the correct word to describe Brown. Although John Brown and his legacy contributed immensely to the abolition of slavery, he also helped begin the bloodiest war in American history. Then again, perhaps the Civil War was inevitable and would have happened with or without him, and this has me more confused than ever. Thoughts?
Agreeing with Madison primarily, I do not believe John Brown's only goal at Harper's Ferry was to establish himself as a martyr. Although that seems to be the end point of his career, Brown had obvious goals for the abolitionist movement and sacrificed important aspects of his life in the hopes of achieving the freeing of slaves. Despite the almost impossible probability of Brown winning at Harper's Ferry, I believe he gave it everything he had regardless of whether or not he knew the outcome. When he was in jail, he did conclude his death would prove more helpful to the cause than his life, but I do not think that was his ultimate goal. If it were, couldn't he have "sacrificed" himself a lot earlier?
At the start of the novel, I was going back and forth on whether or not Brown was a hero or a terrorist. Upon finishing, I have decided his hero-like qualities greatly outnumber his bad ones. Brown made multiple decisions over the course of his lifetime that I do not agree with personally, but I admire the bravery and courage he possessed in the constant pursuit of the abolitionist movement. Like others in the book, I have been inspired by Brown's persistent efforts and devotion to the freeing of slaves, and I respect him for his goals and accomplishments.
Upon finishing Midnight Rising, in agreement with Lindsey I have concluded that Brown's heroic qualities outnumber his qualities that would define him as a terrorist. I still do not know if Brown intended Harper's Ferry to be a suicide mission, or if he intended to fight another day. Maps have been found suggesting that Brown intended to execute other attacks further into the South. That being said, did he really think he and his men could actually survive this raid with so few of them? Many of his own men believed they were marching to their death behind Brown. This was evident in final letters to their loved ones. I do believe Brown was more than happy to die fighting for the abolitionist cause, battling until the very end. This truly established Brown as a martyr.
Part III really makes one think about the connection between the raid of Harper's Ferry and the Civil War. Is it clear that the raid of Harper's Ferry increased tensions between the North and the South, but I do not believe the Civil War is a direct result of of the raid. If this attack had never come about, I believe the war would have still happened. Slavery was too complicated of an issue to just disappear by itself, this war was bound to happen sooner or later.
In Part III of Midnight Rising, the impact that Brown had on America was displayed. Throughout his trial, Brown lost and gained supporters. For example, Ralph Waldo Emerson stepped forward after Brown spoke in his defense. Before, he thought that Brown was insane for attacking Harper's Ferry. After, "Emerson reconsidered his earlier stance and became one of the abolitionist's greatest champions" (215). Brown also lost supporters. The members of the Secret Six all separated. Most of them fled to Canada, in fear of getting captured, without even considering to help Brown's cause. Through all this, Brown stayed true to antislavery, even though he could do nothing anymore. The Baltimore American reported that, "Brown was still as determined as ever, justifying his course at Harpers Ferry to the governor and perfectly resigned to his fate" (230). As many have already said, this makes him a martyr.
In the Epilogue, I thought the comparison between Abraham Lincoln and Brown was interesting. LIncoln and Brown both wanted to abolish slavery. Lincoln thought the way to do this was through nonviolence, while Brown took the more violent approach. Lincoln was obviously successful in the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation, but he admired Brown's courage. Lincoln did think it was strange that Brown wanted slaves to participate in the revolt though. Nonetheless, Brown did contribute to the conclusion of the Emancipation Proclamation and opened America's eyes to slavery by inspiring other abolitionists with his bravery and determination.
After finishing Midnight Rising, I have concluded that John Brown is a hero. I do not believe Brown went into Harpers Ferry thinking he would die and become a martyr. Brown had bigger plans for abolishing slavery; however, his plans for social equality were way ahead of his times and I would say insane for the time period. Even though I would call Brown a hero, I also believe he was insane in most of his ideas and some of his actions. Comparing Brown to Lincoln strongly displayed the wide range of beliefs and difficulty in abolishing slavery. Brown believed in social equality for whites and blacks, while Lincoln believed whites were the superior race and wanted to relocate the freed slaves back to Africa. This made me realize that, even though Brown failed to free many slaves, he brought a massive amount of attention to the subject of slavery. Harpers Ferry, I believe, brought the inevitable war on slavery to the foreground and greatly helped spark the Civil War. But even after the Civil War was over and all slaves were freed, Brown’s dream of social equality was not reached. This made me think: Did Brown expect to change social equality in his life time or was he hoping his legacy would inspirer others to keep his cause alive?
Now that I have completed the book, I am undecided about my thoughts on whether Brown is a hero, terrorist, or insane. After reading Part II, I was convinced he was a hero; once I finished Part III, I started having second thoughts. Was Harpers Ferry a suicide mission? Did Brown knowingly guide his men, some of which his own sons, do their deaths? On one side, Brown claims his mission did not go as planned. He had good intentions and risked the lives of a few men to free many more men. But, if Brown's men had known it was a suicide mission, they probably would not have joined. Brown changed what he claimed was his plan several times which makes me think there was not a secure plan to begin with. Why would Brown risk the lives of these devoted men by following through with a barely developed and poorly thought out plan? I agree with Cashel that the Harpers Ferry attack was intended to make Brown a martyr, seeing as that is the only reasonable answer to my questions. If Brown never intended to survive the events at Harpers Ferry then a well thought out plan is unnecessary as long as the others think there is one, which Brown successfully accomplished.
After finishing Midnight Rising, I have to agree with Alex. I believe that John Brown’s raid of Harper’s Ferry was a suicide mission, with one of the objectives being that he could communicate his beliefs to the country through his actions, no matter what the cost. There were many faults in his plans, and Brown had trouble explaining his actions as well. Brown’s reference to the biblical story of Samson is why I believe he knowingly led himself and his men to their deaths. In the story, Samson sacrifices himself to kill his enemies. In the same way, John Brown attacked Harper’s Ferry so that his actions would bring the issue of slavery to the public’s attention. By dying, Brown could be labeled a martyr and the country would be forced to address the issue of slavery. Therefore, through his sacrifice, he laid the foundations for abolishing slavery. In response to Laura’s question, I think that Brown knew his legacy would help to free slaves. “Brown believed his strike would shock the nation and shake down the pillars of slavery. And he was fully prepared to perish” (239). He recognized that by dying he could set in motion a plan to abolish slavery.
Upon finishing Midnight Rising I mostly agree with what Hillman said. Clearly Brown did not plan out the attack on Harper's Ferry as a true militarist would. Now I know Brown was never in war or the army but any man can correct the mistakes he made. In my part II post, I was taken aback by the many flaws in Brown's plan and wondered why it was as patchwork as it was. Part III has answered my question. I purely believe Brown knew he would be captured and executed as a martyr (unfair to his subordinates I must say) and was willing to sacrifice himself in order to accomplish this goal.
On the question of hero or terrorist, I am forced to side with terrorist. The main example I have is the comparison of John Brown to Abraham Lincoln in the end of part III. Now, this example is partially flawed for it proved Lincoln wasn't as into the cause as Brown however it showed that Lincoln wished for non-violence which exemplified Brown's attack as terrorism. Obviously Lincoln did have presidency during the Civil War but one must wonder if it would be the same if Brown had not attacked...
After finishing Midnight Rising, I have concluded that Brown's raid was a success. Although the raid did not proceed as planned, Brown was successful in helping the abolitionist movement. Having failed with his specific mission to start a rebellion with a slave army, Brown has not failed to help with the greater mission of abolitionism. He succeeded in terrorizing the local population so successfully that at one point a herald announced an attack had begun on another Southern town. Brown's raid brought back the fear of a slave uprising, another small victory. He used his trial and execution as a stage for teaching and explaining the moral reasons for his actions, which led to more support for abolition. Brown was truly honorable throughout his trial and at the time of his execution, unlike many of his coconspirators such as John Cook. Cook thought very differently about his capture and trial, and although he made a dishonorable plea, he was focusing on escape. Brown's success, although not exactly as intended, was huge. Calling him a terrorist or hero seems unnecessary; he was an extreme abolitionist who was devoted to the cause. As I said previously, terrorist or hero, it is all a matter of perspective.
Part III’s focus on the hurried trials of Brown’s men and the excessive use of the death penalty reveals the unjust legal system of the southern states. With John Brown, his trial and resulting execution seemed to be the time in which he has the most influence of his entire life. The speeches of Brown seem to result in him having a lasting effect on society with the newspapers recording every word he says and in turn broadcasting Brown’s voice across the country. Overall, it is amazing the impact of a group of two-dozen men had on society. In the short term, they managed to scare slave owners across the south with the idea of a potential slave army and in the long term, they made an enormous step towards the abolition of slavery. It seems that John Brown was a terrorist of his time and a hero in the modern day. He inspired fear in many across the southern states, caused by the murder of many innocent people in both Harpers Ferry and Pottawatomie, all for political gain. By definition it seems Brown was a terrorist. Brown’s overarching goal of ending slavery could be considered by some to nullify his murders of innocent people as now one can see the major effect which Brown had on society as a whole.
Finishing the book did not change my opinions of Brown and his journey at all. I do however conclude that he is not a terrorist, not a hero, but an extremist. Brown is no different than suicide bombers dying for their cause, and terrorizing others to achieve salvation at all costs. While I do admire Brown's determination, and prestigious wit in his court defense, his means were deplorable. The big question is how much of an affect did John Brown's efforts have on the abolition of slavery. Slavery itself was an extremely large elephant in the room, room being America of course. I believe that a practice so inhumane was bound to self terminate regardless of external input. Also, if Brown knew he would be defeated at Harpers Ferry, I continue to wonder, why play when you're going to lose? Although he claims that his death for the cause of abolition was more valuable than his life, it was already broadly understood that slavery was an abhorred practice. I'm sure that without his death and the attack on Harpers Ferry, what we regard today as "American History" would not have changed. However, not much has really changed, racism still exists, and even though there's no slavery today, there are even worse bioethical dilemmas running rampant. Between slavery back then and human trafficking today, maybe it's humanity to blame, not the confederates.
I agree with you Chris, except for one small point, I think his raid did go as planned. As is made increasingly obvious in the third section of the book, Brown's plan of a slave uprising was never truly feasible. He just used this plan to get the financial support and manpower to make essentially a suicide mission into Harpers Ferry. The real purpose of his plan was to use the fear and press coverage that his attack provided to spread his message of abolishing slavery. In this respect, his mission was a resounding success. In addition to spreading his message, Brown also succeeded and pitting the north and south against each other once again. This conflict directly lead to the civil war, and the abolition of slavery. This was caused by, as you said, the differing perspective on his attack. Many in the north viewed Brown as a hero, while almost all southerners thought he was a terrorist, and executed him as such. Brown was planning for his death however, and made full use of his trial to further spread his message.
John Brown's ultimate sacrifice for his cause was the climax to his vehement fanaticism towards the abolition of slavery. The immutable fact that John Brown sparked the American Civil War is only accentuated by his death, which is a grim embellishment to his final plan. He had always planned for Harper's Ferry to fail. He left behind incriminating evidence for the authorities to find, exposing his allies and exciting the South into a frenzy. What do I think of John Brown? A terrorist is a person who incites fear and terrorizes others. By definition he is a terrorist, but some of these comments accuse him of insanity. I will have to disagree with such accusations because I believe there is confusion between insanity and devotion.
As Drew Sigler had said, he greatly succeeded in spreading his message, thus leading to the Civil War and the abolition of slavery. From just this perspective and forgetting for just this moment the massive death toll caused by the war, many would agree they could forgive Brown for the deaths at Harper's Ferry. This raid was the ember that ignited the fire that would engulf the nation in a war over bondage. Ralph Waldo Emerson once said that a hero is someone who "finds a quality in him that negligent of expense, of health, of life, of danger, of hatred, and of reproach... when you have chosen your part, abide by it, and do not weakly try to reconcile yourself to the world." (215) Brown exemplifies these attributes, and do they sound like attributes of an insane man? John Brown held steadfastly to his beliefs and his cause and did what any one would do if they had the courage, take action. Did he go too far with his devotion? I believe he did. But without it, slavery could have continued for many more years. However Brown had his flaws and, for better or for worse, they led him to his final fate. This leads me to my parting words: where would the world be without our Browns?
After finishing Midnight Rising, I must say that I agree with what Althea said about the two sides of John Brown. Although he was admired among nearly all abolitionists, for they deemed the Harpers Ferry raid to be a selfless act on his part, he was still obsessed with becoming a martyr for his cause and making sure that in the “worst event; it [the Harpers Ferry raid] would certainly PAY,” (232) as he always felt it would. But this obsession with martyrdom and proclaiming his cause made Brown appear to be nothing less than a religious fanatic who had sacrificed his men for what he thought was a greater cause. I would like to say that with John Brown’s raid he shed light on the increasing divide that slavery was creating in America and that made him a hero, but I can find no way to justify his actions and his plan.
If Brown had a better plan that would have enabled him to successfully and peacefully take over Harpers Ferry, then he would no doubt be a hero, albeit a vigilante-hero. However, the inadequacy that was seen in Brown’s plan in Part II, coupled with his ideas of fanaticism and comparisons to Samson, make Brown seem like a terrorist. As Patrick said, it appeared that Brown knew he was going to be captured and was willing to sacrifice himself in order to bring down/bring attention to slavery. His raid on Harpers Ferry, it appears, was merely a distraction from his actual plan of martyrdom. As a martyr, John Brown was a hero sacrificing himself for the greater cause; the means in which Brown made himself a martyr were means of terrorism. There is no way I can deny that Brown acted as a terrorist in his raid of Harpers Ferry.
In the grand scheme of things Brown's journey was a success. The attack raised an immense amount of awareness for Brown's abolitionist ideals. And despite this exposure being mostly negative, the raid had an everlasting positive effect. The end of slavery in the US came as a result of the civil war, which was undeniably sparked by Brown and his attack. As Brown's trial got the media attention of the entire country, Brown used it to his advantage to prove he was an admirable man fighting for an admirable goal. For the raid as a whole I have to side with Chris over Drew, I think that even though the raid was a resounding success, it was not a success in the way Brown had envisioned. There was no slave uprising, and media played a bigger role in the notoriety of all that occurred than anything else. Despite Brown being adamantly gallant throughout his trial its proceedings, I still find it hard to call Brown a hero. I see it as Brown's lack of planning in the raid to be foolish, and my childhood understanding of heroes not to be those who lead a suicide mission. There are too many glaring examples of Brown being irresponsible with his followers to deny the claim of insanity any plausibility. From his refusal to plea insanity in court, to his imploration of his wife not to visit him in his final days. Another note to touch upon is my disagreeance with others who have posted before me on Brown's so called intentional martyrdom. I believe that Brown had every intention to walk away from the situation alive, and with his two sons. With his back against the wall, Brown died for his cause but did not intend to when he set off on his journey.
After finishing the book I believe that, like others have said, John Brown did hope to carry out his original plan of creating a massive slave rebellion that would spread across the entire South. However, it seemed that he knew going into the raid on Harper's Ferry how unlikely the success of that plan was. Brown also knew that even if he and his men failed in their mission, something would be accomplished and progress toward their goal would be made. In essence, Brown's real goal was simply to shock the Southern states, and to show the slave owners that there are people out there who will not sit idle and watch slavery thrive. If this in fact was his goal then he did succeed. As much as the white slave owners in Virginia tried to hide it, after the raid on Harper's Ferry they were terrified their slaves rebelling against them.
I was also amazed by the manner in which Brown conducted himself in prison and on trial. Even though he knew from the very beginning that he would be put to death for his crimes, he kept a level head and continued preaching his ideas. Perhaps this was his plan from the start, to end up on trial for his life. After the raid people across the entire country, even many abolitionists, had called what Brown did a wicked act of violence. Once he began the explain himself in prison and in court however, the same people began to praise him. Even southerners were impressed by the way he never showed fear or despair. In this way, the time between his capture and his death served an important purpose, and it is possible that he had planned for things to unfold the way they did.
I believe that Part III emphasized the fact that Brown wanted his mission and goals to be known to the public. As Alex cited, he carried numerous documents on him that instantly condemn him as a participant in this upheaval, and he left all of his "official" government files at the Kennedy Farm in plain view of investigation. While in prison, he openly welcomed visitors and reporters, and told of the goal of his failed mission. This brings up the point that his mission may have seemed failed from the start. As I have said in earlier posts, he set out into a slave state with 20 other men to seize a federal property and arm slaves. His management and swiftness were significantly lacking, and his failure to surrender in the engine house raises the question of whether a ploy in his goal of public awareness was self-sacrifice. He certainly succeeded in becoming the spotlight of attention, as Charlestown became a hotspot overnight, with railroads rerouting to make stops there. His trial also showed the public that Brown was vigilant in the face of certain doom, and even while he was on the stand, he still turned the issue into a conflict pitting slavery against freedom. His death awoke the nation, and as Edmund Ruffin put it, would "stir the sluggish blood of the South", and the trial brought Charlestown to "the seat of war." Brown's raid showed American's that slavery was a problem that could not be ignored, and forced them to choose sides in the battle for freedom, ultimately splitting America in the Civil War. Even the authorities in Virginia feared Brown's position and influence, as the military was used to guard Brown against a rescue attempt, and was also used to keep the crowd far enough away to hear any possible last words. These actions were questioned by a New York Tribune reporter; "Why this jealous caution", "it is feared this old man's sturdy truths and simple eloquence will stir a fever in the blood of all who listen." This knowledge that the authorities isolated Brown further elevated the necessity of American's to choose sides in the trial and ultimately, the conflict of slavery versus freedom.
Upon completion of the book, I feel as though Brown certainly aided the abolitionist cause more by dying then he ever could have by living. It seems clear that Brown had a sub-plan in his head which he never disclosed to anyone else. His mission never was to escape Harpers Ferry alive, he set out to become a martyr. I believe that the situation worked itself out perfectly for Brown's secret plan, as he was captured alive and given a trial. The time between his capture and his execution was just as important as the raid itself. During this time, Brown impressed and inspired many with his bravery, calmness, and loyalty to the cause. Brown was successful in gaining interest (if not public) in the north, and striking fear in the southern slaveowners.
John Brown truly was a remarkable man, and throughout the book his loyalty to the cause was on display. However, I was more impressed by the way he conducted himself in court and as a prisoner than anything he did in battle or in preparation. He was able to gain the sympathy and even support of many people based solely on his conduct in court. He never wavered in his answers or intentions. He did not apologize or ask for forgiveness, but instead used this time to send a poignant message to the American people: slavery must end. In the end, call John Brown a hero or call him a terrorist, he truly was the catalyst that marked the beginning of the end fro the most shameful and evil institution in American history.
Despite Brown’s many “terrorist-like” actions, I still perceive Brown as a hero. It does appear that his entire plan from the start was a suicide mission in attempt to plague the South with fear, but even so, his actions were nonetheless for a noble cause. Besides, I find it highly unlikely that Brown was willing to spend years, even decades, planning for a suicide mission that would sacrifice most of the few existing abolitionists at the time, including himself and most of his family. There were holes in his plans, but I believe that was due to his poor leadership/planning skills, perhaps the very quality that proves to be the fatal flaw of Brown as a hero. “By definition”, don’t all heroes have flaws? The murders he committed may have been wrong, but I don’t think a few deaths is enough for Brown to be classified as a terrorist. His courage in the face of death, his readiness to sacrifice himself for his cause - these, and many other traits of John Brown I admire. Weather he is a hero or a terrorist should be an evaluation of him, not his actions.
As others have mentioned, after finishing part III, I found John Brown’s true intentions during the Harpers Ferry raid to be ambiguous. Although there is substantial evidence to show that Brown probably knew he was going die, I agree with Lindsey and Madison in that the Harpers Ferry raid was not initially a suicide mission. Brown was clearly very devoted to the abolitionist cause, so much so that he never doubted or reconsidered his views. It is possible that these strong beliefs clouded Brown’s judgment, giving him false hope that the raid itself would be successful. However, I think it is also possible that Brown understood the event would draw attention and possibly spark future conflict, regardless of whether he and his men survived. This explains Browns willingness to die. John Brown showed qualities of both a hero and a terrorist. Brown assisted in the murder of many Americans and sought to “ terrorize” the southerners in order to prevent any retaliation. Contrarily, Brown was very courageous and was devoted to a noble cause. His actions and speeches before and after the raid drew the attention of many, who began to support and admire him. Although Brown made poor decisions and had lapses in judgment, I found his heroic qualities to offset his terrorist like qualities.
Part III emphasized the flaws in Brown's plans. While his motives were justified, his ill-conceived plans were what led to his downfall. It was interesting that Brown admitted that his plans and decision making were faulty, and his leadership inadequate, but he remained so composed and seemingly unperturbed during and after the attack. This leads one to wonder what his true intentions were behind his plans. Did Brown know that he had no chance to beat the South in a military confrontation anyway, but attacked in the hopes of helping others believe a successful assault on slavery was possible? Maybe Brown believed that if he had fled to safety during the attack, he would not have created the same controversy and media attention. He remarked that he advanced his “cause most by dying for it among non-believers”. However, without his attack, no others would have taken the risks that brought about the social change for which Brown passionately fought.
Even though most of the country at the time considered Brown a terrorist, it's important to note that the pro-slavery southerners knew at the time the importance of Brown's actions, and that he had started an irreversible chain of events. As others have mentioned, he had an unjust, ridiculously quick trial. After the trial, a nondescript location was chosen for his hanging, since his prosecutors also knew better than to bury him, as his grave would become a memorial. Robert E. Lee and others tried too pass of the attack as just the act of one lunatic, but by this time, did the South even stand a chance against the social change about to be unleashed in the Civil War? So while it is clear that his violence may not have been the right choice morally, and his plans were certainly flawed, in retrospect, the Brown’s efforts were well worth the bloodshed. Brown should be looked upon as a hero, if not for his attack, at least for his revolutionary thoughts of racial equality.
Upon finishing Midnight Rising, I am still skeptical in calling John Brown a hero. Though he was fighting for a noble cause the fact is that he raided a town and killed people. I feel that this is overlooked and curtained because it was in the name of abolition. I agree with Alex in that, if Brown had quietly and peacefully freed slaves without harming anyone, he would be considered a hero. He failed in doing so however; and the raid had casualties. Because of this I cannot call Brown a hero, nor a terrorist. He was simply a man who was willing to give his life fighting and standing by what he believed in. John Brown showed extreme strength even when he was captured and on trial. In his own mind, he was on trial with his peers, but Brown believed the ultimate judge was God. I believe Brown was so bold in court and during his sentencing, because he knew that only his image in God’s eyes mattered. Brown continued his boldness even at the gallows. His last words were said to be spoken, “quietly & civilly”. Brown even had to wait around ten minutes for the trap door to drop as the execution service had to be set up. I commend his unnerving personality, as he knew that any fear or despair he showed would only be used against him and his cause. His courage gave his enemies nothing to use against him after he was executed. In conclusion of John Brown’s story, his actions in life had a major effect on the future. Though I still standby in saying he is not a hero, but his actions at Harper’s Ferry had positive results in the rest of the nation. He sparked the idea that something could be done about slavery and that abolitionists didn’t just have to standby and watch in happen in their own country.
After finishing Midnight Rising I can conclude that John Brown is a hero but an insane one at that. Browns assault on Harpers Ferry was a suicidal mission bringing the insane topic into the forefront. While the attack was ill-planned and extremely undermanned it got its point across. Brown used his popularity and military leadership to advance his goal of abolishing slavery. The attack itself set the stage for this in his capture. While in captivity the real hero of John Brown is shown. He repeatedly testifies for himself giving dramatic speeches saying he meant no harm at Harpers Ferry and displaying his true beliefs and goals in life. In Part III everything John Brown has done in his life boils down to the courtroom and his months in jail. All of his experiences throughout his years allow him to share his goals of abolishing slavery to a high profile audience. In this sense his attack on Harpers Ferry was a smashing success because of the publicity the abolitionist movement received. Part III also questions Browns strategy in the attack of Harpers Ferry. This part made me turn to a direction of thinking he was a little bit insane. With all of his years of military experience wouldn't he know his forces were outnumbered? wouldn't he know it was close to suicidal? Each of the questions provided in Part III drew me closer to believing the insane argument. While John Browns attack on Harpers Ferry can be deemed insane by many his time in captivity and his death proved to be much more influential to the abolitionist movement than the attack could have ever been.
To play devil's advocate, I will remain solid in my opinion that John Brown was a terrorist. As many of Brown's companions later stated, Brown did not choose Harper's Ferry for its slave population nor armory, but for the shock value and panic that it would cause. Think about it, Brown showed the South that abolitionists could not only organize themselves into an armed force that could free slaves, but could strike at the heart of the South at any given moment. Brown wanted to spread this fear and wanted others to spread it further until slavery would finally be abolished. This tactic that he used is no different than the Boston Bombings or 9/11 in that an attack was made so close to home that people don't feel safe even in their own country.
In the end, though, did Brown succeed? As mentioned in Midnight Rising, there was and still is controversy about whether the Civil War started at Harper's Ferry or at Fort Sumter. Even if war was not formally declared after Harper's Ferry, Americans knew that they had to take sides, either they were pro-freedom or pro-slavery, after the raid there was no luxury of middle ground. The South was terrified and outraged that the North was not vehemently persecuting John Brown, and showed how careless it was to their way of life and freedoms. Southerners knew that the North wasn't going to support them so they had to support themselves by breaking off from the union. I believe that John Brown did not single-handedly start the Civil War, but the consequences of his actions made every American call out for a bloodletting, no matter which side he or she was on.
Brown, dissatisfied with a pacifist approach to abolition, gained followers in the North in order to raid Harper's Ferry. He intented to arm slaves with weapons from the aresenal, but his plan quickly fell apart and within 36 hours Brown's men had fled, been killed, or were captured. Although the raid had somewhat "failed", federal forces seizing Brown caught the entire nation's attention. Brown had ultimately accomplished his goal of giving the country a jumpstart in ending slavery. Southerners became more aware of the what was to come and feared this was just the begining of Northern uprisings agaisnt slave labor.
Many have argued that it was Brown's plan from the begining to die in Harper's Ferry raid, regardless if that was the case, Brown stayed true to his cause throughout his life and his political/religious career. Brown refusing to plead insanity brings me back to the idea that he wanted to be true to his cause and honor his family name without being labeled "lunatic" or an "deranged".
Part III has led me to my final conclusion, that even though I was previously unsure of my standings, I am now positive I would regard John Brown as a hero. John Brown brought the issue of slavery to the frontline of the nation’s problems; drawing public attention to the sinful deeds of the slaveholders, forcing Americans to chose a side in the American Civil War. His actions and words empowered future political leaders such as Abraham Lincoln to address the issue of slavery, and I believe that without John Brown’s deeds, the use of slavery would have been around much longer before it would eventually die out on its own. It was evident that the slaveholders were not going to abandon their usage of slaves by suddenly recognizing it as morally wrong: the Southerners were going to fight back to keep slavery. John Brown did strike fear into the hearts of Southerners, but he believed in order to grasp all of the nation’s attention, he needed to take a firm stand in order for his message to be heard. His bravery cannot be matched, and I greatly admired his perseverance to keep fighting to make a difference till his last moments of life. His selfless motives portray his valiant character, and I was amazed by the insight in his wise words and the boldness in which he answered questions on his movement. John Brown was fearless in his pursuit to rid the world of slavery, and as a hero, his actions lead to the freedom of slaves, and eventual racial equality. Without John Brown’s role in history, I fear the issue of slavery could have gone unmatched for even longer, if there was no man as courageous as John Brown to take the lead.
Brown's dedication to the cause became something that I greatly admired in this last section of the book. From prison, John Brown continued to inspire so many other abolitionists to act up against the proslavery South. His fight against slavery soon propelled into a war against slavery, which is evident from the countless rallies held in Brown's favor, and the undeniable influence Brown had on future civil rights leaders such as Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King Jr. Dedication and courage are two very important characteristics that make John Brown a hero. Brown had the courage to face the death penalty, and the dedication to make his cause known even from prison. John Brown literally took his fight against slavery to his grave, and even beyond that.
The true mark of a hero is shown even after they are gone. A true hero will inspire people to keep fighting for their cause even after they have died, which is exactly what John Brown did. Even after his death there were countless rallies held in support of him, and the abolitionist movement grew to hold even greater influence throughout the nation.
In the beginning of the book I was skeptical about calling Brown a hero, but by the end I had been convinced he was. By taking his execution so bravely and for so strongly standing up for what he believed him I think thats what made him a hero. The characteristics of a hero consist of a man's noble qualities and if Brown's sacrifices and devotion to abolition don't count for a noble quality then I'm not sure what would. Brown dedicated his life to the fight against slavery because he felt as a human it was his moral obligation to give those who's rights had been taken away the ability to get them back. Although some may argue his religious extremism and slight insanity made him a terrorist, I still believe his goal to liberate the slaves is an act of heroism not terrorism.
In the aftermath of Harper's Ferry, it is tempting to call Brown a hero. This is because I am partial to his cause. It is easy to call him a hero because he bravely fought, and ultimately lost his life for a cause I believe in. It must be noted that Brown's actions fit the definition of terrorism to a T: Terrorism (noun),"The use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes"(from dictionary.com). Brown himself said he chose Harper's Ferry as his target because it would strike the most fear into the slave owners. Brown's actions are also seemingly heroic, it cant be discounted that he gave his life for a noble cause. In reality, the difference between a terrorist and a hero is simply what you believe in. For many extremists Bin Laden is a hero, yet to me he is a vile terrorist. If taking an impartial stance, Brown is simply a maniac. Brown allows his beliefs to consume him as his radical thinking eats away his entire life, drawing in many other lives as well. Once possessed by the concept of slavery Brown seemingly loses the ability to think as a reasonable person. Although it is hard to admit, John Brown, a man arguably as influential as Abraham Lincoln in the abolitionist movement, is insane.
After finishing the third part of Midnight Rising, I have firmly concluded that John Brown was a hero and that his raid on Harper’s Ferry was a success. While reading part III it occurred to me that John Brown did have a backup plan in case the raid was not successful. As Brown was on trial, he admitted to all of the prosecutions and only question the morality of the laws under which he was be prosecuted for. This clearly showed to me that Brown had prepared for the eventual fail of his raid. I believe that Brown’s backup plan was to become a martyr like others have said. This was not a suicide mission or his main goal but I do believe it was his fall back plan. By doing this Brown created a figure that was bigger then his actions or what he could ever become. He was the man who died for what he believed in. Emerson was even quoted saying “(Brown) will make the gallows glorious like the cross.” The sacrifice of his life made a more powerful message then anything he could of done while alive.
Looking back on the entire book, it occurs to me how controversial a figure John Brown was. Was he a terrorist, a hero or just crazy? Very few people have been described as all three and all can be validly argued in the case of John Brown. This means I could have a completely different opinion on him then another person has on him. To me though, John Brown was a hero doing what he knew was right.
Like many have concluded after reading part III, I think John Brown is certainly a hero. From reading the above comments I found it interesting that some thought Brown had planned a suicide mission and expected the outcome. In my opinion, Brown did not anticipate being captured and hanged. Although this outcome is obviously not ideal, it was not a complete failure. John Brown's main goal was to abolish slavery and his courageous actions in the Harper's Ferry attack sparked the necessary uprising that would lead to more change. What the abolitionist movement needed most was the support and attention of the people in both the Northern and Southern states and the commotion Brown caused by this attack got everyone's attention. I strongly agree with Osborne Anderson's statement that John Brown "dug the mine and laid the train which will eventually dissolve the union between Freedom and Slavery". In court when Brown's lawyers tried to spin the case to make people sympathetic to John Brown the lunatic, he refused. This shows that Brown was proud of what his mission accomplished and he would stand by it until the end. Someone that courageous, selfless, and devoted should be regarded as a hero.
I found it interesting at the end of the book that many of Brown's men did not realize the scale of the master plan. Granted, this could just be a cover-up for the local authorities, but what if Brown intentionally lied to them in order to have a stronger fighting force? This, although a bit extreme, could actually have happened. Many conspirators admitted that they thought Brown was only intending to take the slaves and escort them out of the South, not hold the entire town hostage. Others thought that this was a more widespread revolution-type scenario, with strikes occurring throughout the southern states. On top of that, Brown's composure at the scaffold versus his mens' nervous nature(s) show that Brown expected an end like this, while the others may not have. Brown's credibility is pretty questionable for me.
This credibility issue sways my opinion of Brown to the negative side. He may have had good intentions (the best intentions at the time), but his secrecy made him a shady person in my mind. Also, he enlisted his own family members into a hopeless war, after teaching them of his "God-given" duty for their entire lives. Brown did give them the choice to serve, but to them there was no other option. Those are just some of the factors that make John Brown's identity as a hero or terrorist so blurred for me. There are so many of these little factors that combined to create such a conflicted individual. On one extreme, Brown was a heroic abolitionist fighting for the greater good of mankind. On the other, Brown was a terrorizing antihero looking to complete his task given by God. In any case, John Brown certainly had an interesting life and left quite the legacy behind.
Until recently I believed that Brown was an insane, self righteous, and self driven terrorist. Now analyzing some evidence from parts two and three I discovered and concluded that overall Brown's attack upon Harper's Ferry pushes himself and members of his party into the terrorist category. But his mission, and his cause were truly remarkable. Brown has a charismatic way- this is evident in court the day he was asked if he had any reason for them not to find him guilty. Brown's gift with speech allowed him to change the opinion of him for much of the audience, as a man who simply had "lost his mind", to a man praised by Wise and held up for all to see by Thoreau. However this does not save him. Just because Brown decided to fight bravely for a great cause doesn't make him a hero. Also, as stated above, Brown chose Harper's Ferry for it's strategic shock value.
Brown's ultimate goal was to send shock waves, fear, and panic into the hearts of those who lived in the South and or those who owned slaves. Comparing the late 1850's to our modern 2013 I believe that this is truly what makes Brown and his men terrorists. The actions of Brown speak louder than his words. His action was full of terror. I believe that during Part Two he was more cautious, and more caring of his fellow countrymen. But what is a terrorist? We've seen it defined for us above. But there is another definition I found. The word (terrorist) was originally applied to supporters of the Jacobins in the French Revolution, who advocated repression and violence in pursuit of the principles of democracy and equality (Mac/Apple Dictionary). This really hit home when I read it. And I immediately applied it to Brown and his force.
Whether he was modern, or whether he was from 1859, Brown was a force to be reckoned with, and a reprobate.
After finishing part three I saw how people could have many different opinions on whether Brown was a hero or a terrorist. Personally I find it difficult to call him a terrorist because ultimately he was trying to abolish slavery. However I do agree with others in that his specialty was producing fear in others. Through his different raids he sparked the violence that would lead to the civil war. Part three also showed me how much of a hero Brown was. His eternal devotion to the cause up until his very last minutes of life show how committed he was. After his capture he never once turned cynical or became hostile towards his captors. Brown must have known that he was eventually going to die and at some point he must have come to terms with this. At what point this occurred I am not sure. Did he know all along that he was going to be sacrificed, or did it only become clear after his capture? As many others have mentioned above, it is clear that his death aided the cause more than his actions did. The thing I was most impressed with was the way in which Brown conducted himself throughout his trial and in the events leading up to his death. I think these actions display him as a truly respectable man who most definitely began the fight to end slavery. As Douglass says in the epilogue, “ If John Brown did not end he war that ended slavery, he did at least begin the war that ended slavery.” This quote truly displays what Brown set out to do, and the effect it had on others.
Like many others, in the beginning of the novel I was unsure whether to call John Brown a hero. After finishing the novel, I would not be able to label John Brown as anything but a hero. Even though some of Brown’s actions can be categorized as terrorism, I still feel that I am unable to label Brown as a terrorist. This is because, throughout the novel, Horwitz continues to emphasize John Brown’s purpose of his actions: to abolish slavery. Also, Brown’s actions can be viewed as courageous and brave. As others have stated, these are heroic qualities. Brown believed in the abolishment of slavery, and continued to pursue that belief until the day he was executed. Like Peter, I was amazed how John Brown handled his execution in such eloquent manner. Brown was strong and civil even on the ride to the gallows, sitting atop his own coffin. From the viewpoint of many antislavery people during this time period, John Brown can be viewed as a martyr. Without the work of John Brown, slavery could have continued for much longer than it had. This is because although his specific plan at Harpers Ferry was unsuccessful, his actions did strike terror in people who were proslavery. John Brown’s actions played a significant role in the abolishment of slavery, thus contributing to the beginning of the Civil War.
The conclusion of Midnight Rising proved very interesting as I began to realize the affect Brown’s actions had on the commencement of the Civil War. I found it became evident that the attempted taking of Harper’s Ferry was necessary for timely abolishment slavery. It seems the North discovered its true position on the matter in light of the controversy, which I believe may not have come about if not for the catalyst the raid represented. Therefore, I think Brown’s actions were just- he had to perform an undesirable deed in order to ¬begin the gradual abolishment of slavery. The death of fifteen men is a tragedy, but it is a small price to pay for the freedom of those who were treated unspeakably during the reign of true terror: slavery. Brown’s actions were undeniably radical; however, the abolitionist cause was making no gains by complaining of the horrors. Something had to be done and John Brown took courageously took matters into his own hands.
In Part III of the narrative, the brave man who fought for a moral cause and inspired the abolitionist movement met his bitter end. During his trial Brown proclaimed “if it is deemed necessary that I should forfeit my life for the furtherance of the ends of justice…I submit. So let it be done (213).” He accepted his death sentence with a calm face and determined posture which many onlookers deemed respectable and a man of vision. However, some people question Brown’s overall plans for the Harpers Ferry raid as he did not seem to follow his plans according to his original intent. Was it Brown’s true intention to transform himself into a martyr all along? Even his followers were not quite sure what Brown’s true plans were and they merely followed his instructions. Osborne Anderson, one of Brown’s men, stated “Captain Brown was all activity…I could not help thinking at times he was somewhat puzzled (237).” This statement raises the question whether John Brown was insane and delusional? During his trial one of Brown’s attorneys tried to introduce evidence claiming that Brown was mentally ill. The defense attorney tried to demonstrate to the judge and jury that John Brown’s best legal defense was in insanity. This was based on the actions of a mentally ill man who tried to execute the most daring act of freeing the slaves. Regardless of his mental status, John Brown was a hero. Although his actions began and ended in violence he did in fact send a message that would catalyze the Civil War and bring an would ultimately end “this Negro question (187).”
Upon finishing the book, John Brown makes me think he went on his mission to stir up America, and that’s exactly what he did. As much as we debate if he is a hero or a terrorist and as much as the people of his day did, I don’t believe he cared what anyone thought. He succeeded in bringing up the most heated debate in U.S history to the front of everyone’s mind. I think the true purpose of his attack was a wake up call for society. I cannot call John Brown a terrorist, and I cannot call him a hero. The only thing I can pin him down as is a catalyst. I do give him Brown a lot of respect for being incredibly brave by taking on his own execution and standing up for his cause more adamantly than most people would. To change one of the U.S’s largest flaws takes steps. It took a bold president and a war. Yet it also took an extremist with a sub-par plan and strong beliefs.
I finished the book and I still believe that John Brown is a terrorist. He purposely created chaos in Harpers Ferry, VA, which spread throughout the South. His goal was to die in the fight so that he could become a martyr and bring attention to an issue that he felt strongly about like many terrorists do today. Brown used religion to fuel his desire to change and to morally justify his fight to many people who, at the time, didn’t believe in freeing the slaves. Brown was clearly ahead of his time and his goal was good but nevertheless his violent methods made him a terrorist. He spent weeks plotting an invasion into the South, recruited followers of like beliefs, stockpiled arms, and disguised himself so that he could attack Americans—how can he not be called a terrorist? Brown tried to reach as many ears as he could by taking every opportunity he had to write letters or speak with people in order to indoctrinate others with his ideas. Brown attacked his country and many civilians—including African Americans and for this he is a terrorist. It is important to note that although Brown may be a terrorist be definition, he does not carry all the same negative connotations that the modern day terrorists do. Brown was right in his ideals. He started a conflict that needed to be started and may not have been resolved as quickly without him. Brown was courageous and showed true bravery in his calmness under pressure and in the days leading up to his death. Brown was a great man on a great mission but unfortunately he went about it in a violent way.
Considering the modern day connotations of terrorism, it seems impossible to consider a person both a terrorist and a hero. However, John Brown achieves just that. Though it seems impossible that an act of terrorism can also be an act of heroism, John Browns raid on Harper's Ferry also achieves just that. As terrorism is defined as the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes, whether a to consider a terrorist a hero or not depends on political beliefs. As almost everyone today hates slavery, it is fair to call John Brown a hero. His violent raids and murders were indeed acts of terrorism, but with the goal being the end of slavery, all but the most violent were acts of heroism. Brown's bravery in the face of death made him a martyr, and his raid did eventually become the spark that freed the slaves. His prominent role in freeing the slaves certainly makes him a hero. While he must indeed be called a terrorist by definition, he is still a hero who helped to free the slaves.
After finishing Midnight Rising, I have maintained my belief that John Brown was neither a hero nor a terrorist, but instead a revolutionary. John Brown committed "terror-invoking" acts, such as the Pottawatomie Massacre and the raid on Harper's Ferry, knowing that his actions would most likely lead to some form of chaos and social disorder targeted at the general public as well as the United States Government. However, what distinguishes John Brown from the normal terrorist was his logical reasoning, benign intent, and beneficial outcome. Sure he killed US citizens, sure he caused the government to send an army detachment to combat him, sure his aim was to stir up a slave rebellion that would have certainly resulted in the deaths of many others, but he did it all not just out of religious belief, but in protection of the the rights of United States citizens. More so, the results of his failed raid on Harper's Ferry was enough to spark the civil war, which as we know was the greatest step towards ending slavery. People of his time would have seen Brown as the modern day "terrorist", but being able to reflect upon history I am certain that he was a revolutionary.
After finishing this book, I still stand by my opinion that John Brown was a terrorist. His attack on Harper’s Ferry reaped neither reward, nor success. Although it did bring Brown fame in both a positive and negative way. All but five members of Brown’s followers/army were caught or killed, Harper’s Ferry was not rid of its slave population, many were hurt or killed, and John Brown himself was tried and found guilty (and therefore hanged). Although the trial never would have been a fair one, I still believe he would have been found guilty either way. Brown did manage to inspire panic in the owners of slaves as they feared a rebellion from their own slaves. He also inspired a nation to look at the mixed society they had created. Although Harper’s Ferry was a sad, unfortunate and unsuccessful affair, John Brown did manage to raise the question of slavery and its affects on society in a moral sense. People began to debate whether abolitionists had a good point (or not). It’s sad to think that an act of terrorism can actually spark a debate that could’ve been accomplished without the violence. Even abolitionists at the time such as Horace Greeley of the New York Tribune, disagreed with Brown’s crazed methods and believed slavery could be abolished in a more peaceful manner and that Brown was indeed misguided and insane. Brown’s raid could also be considered the first blood shed of the Civil War, or the war against slavery. I still don’t agree with his methods of using violence on violence, but by compromising his own principles, he did get this country to think about its moral principles and the inhumanness of slavery, which was what he partially wanted in the end. He may have raised many good points, but his attack was inexcusable, unorganized affair that once he put his foot in, could not get it back out. I cannot commend him for any of his actions, no matter how good the cause was, as he committed crimes against his own citizens and helped create a foundation for one of the bloodiest wars in history.
I disagree with some of my classmates that have posted earlier this summer based on the belief that violence was the only means possible to start the debate that ultimately led to the abolition of slavery. I believe that John Brown recognized the fact that nothing was being done to stop the evil practice that was thriving in the South. As we learned in Part I, John Brown lived in a time where "dough-faced" presidents were in control of the country. These leaders were among some of the weakest the United States has ever seen. They either catered to the wants of the South, or were frightened by the idea of war, so they let the South do what they pleased. In addition to weak leadership, at this time in history, abolitionists were considered to be a radical group of thinkers. Even Abraham Lincoln, denied being an abolitionist in the famous Lincoln Douglas debates in 1858, just one year before the raid on Harper's Ferry. I do not think that it would have been possible to end slavery in a peaceful way at this time considering no abolitionist groups were gaining enough traction to start anything by non violent means. This was a time when violence was the norm. Southerner's were killing Free State men before the Harper's Ferry events even occurred. The raid sparked political debate and led to the abolition of slavery after the Civil War, and although the war was a terrible and bloody one, I believe that it was necessary to change America for the better and abolish the immoral practice of slavery. Osborn Anderson, one of Brown's five men that escaped Harper's Ferry wrote an account of the mission after reaching Canada. Despite the attack's failure, he wrote, John Brown "dug the mine and laid the train which will eventually dissolve the union between freedom and slavery" (199). I stand by my opinion that I had after Part I of the book and agree with Anderson. For this reason I consider John Brown to be a hero, and not a terrorist.
It is hard growing up in Marblehead, a Northern town in 2013, without feeling sympathetic to the cause of Brown, because we all want the slaves to be free and equal. Having a minimal understanding of John Brown and his mission prior to reading this book, I would have been able to make the claim that he was a hero. However, after reading Midnight Rising, I have to force myself to look objectively at the actions of Brown and label him a terrorist. For a decade Brown terrorized the United States, killing civilians and creating chaos in support of the abolitionist movement. One must no forget that Harper's Ferry was national territory, thus making Brown in his attack an enemy of the state, not of the "Peculiar Institution", slavery. As many have mentioned before me, what seems to be the major outcome of the raid is the shock value it garnered nationwide, and the fear it struck in the hearts of slave owners. In death, Brown was a martyr. A martyr however, is not always a hero. If they were the same, then someone who kills themself in a carbombing for Al-Qaeda, killing innocent bystanders is a hero, which is clearly not the case. In my opinion, Brown knew he was planning a doomed attack, but was to blinded by his fanaticism to change course. Towards the end of the book, this seemed more and more the case as Brown truly milked every minute before his execution to the fullest, writing and letting the world know of his cause to garner support for the abolitionist movement. Although I personally cannot condone the actions of Brown, regardless of intent, one must commend the bravery and resolve shown by Brown in his final month of life. These two traits make Brown in my opinion not only a terrorist, but an American icon.
After reading part III, I am convinced that John Brown is a hero and a lunatic. Although the raid of Harpers Ferry initially was a failure because the intended goal was not met and many died, it paid off in the long run. This one single event started a chain reaction that resulted in the Civil War and the end of slavery. All it took to achieve this was one courageous man that was willing to risk everything and devote his life to abolition of slavery. That one man was John Brown. The reason that things worked out so well was because of Brown’s bravery, courage, and self respect. These are classic characteristics of a hero. It was clear to everyone he met that he was a genuine man and the way he carried himself demanded respect. Brown managed to think so far ahead that he knew success would come one way or another. Though John Brown had all the characteristics of a hero, he also had the characteristics of a lunatic. A lunatic is a person whose actions and characteristics are marked by extreme recklessness. John Brown’s plan to raid Harpers Ferry was reckless because he knew that things might not end well and he was willing to risk his life for his cause anyway. Fortunately for Brown, his recklessness was worth it in the long run and made him an important person in American history.
My greatest difficulty with this reading has been how often I find myself questioning my own morals as I attempt to label John Brown. My curiosity had me reading the comparison of Brown to Lincoln repeatedly. Tony Horwitz best exemplifies their divergence with the words "unlike Brown, he was willing to reconsider his views" (p.278). Brown maintained the same belief in page one as he did facing an impending death. And although it was Browns actions that enhanced Lincolns campaign, their methods were polar. Lincoln achieved his goal through aiding the slaves as opposed to attacking their masters. It is for that reason that when crediting the lack of slavery in America the word emancipation is used not raid. Perhaps it was Lincoln's flexibility most vital to the Emancipation Proclamation. Brown executed his own plan flawlessly, Lincoln however executed a plan of all anti-slavery Americans. I believe that I have been unable to label Brown because of my similarities to Lincoln rather than Brown. Unlike some readers who refused to change opinions and even attacked those with opposing ones, I remained willing to reconsider. There were times when I labeled him as insane, heroic and terroristic. However just as often I found reasons he was none of the above. I found that Brown, just as all humans, was a spectrum of characteristics rather than three solid lines. As a final conclusion I believe John Brown is not only a hero to slaves but a terrorist to slave masters, all the while being beautifully insane.
Towards the end of the novel it became more evident to me that John Brown resembled a hero, however I am still skeptical about calling him this because of his ruthless actions at the Pottawatomie Massacre. I found it interesting that towards the end of the book he made it clear that he had no intentions of harming anyone unless it was an act of self-defense. Yet, he invaded people’s homes and not only shot but tortured pro- slavery advocates.
On the contrary, in the beginning of John Browns mission people strongly opposed his actions and called him insane. However, many people even those who were pro- slavery or simply did not agree with what he did came to realize that Brown had a noble cause. His poorly planned invasion had several negative effects, although it transformed the view that some people had on slavery. Abolitionists were deeply inspired and encouraged by his brave ambitions and would continue to carry out Browns dream of abolishing slavery after his demise. John Brown created awareness about freeing slaves from bondage and expressed that his goal was not to kill civilians which proves he became a hero even if he previously was seen as only a terrorist. He also demonstrated genuine bravery and a composed appearance through his trials and execution. John Brown had clearly left his mark by motivating abolitionist to carry on the battle against slavery even after the raid on Harpers Ferry.
I was particularly struck by the widespread panic throughout the South sparked after the raid at Harpers Ferry. The resulting fear makes it seem as though Brown was a terrorist. However, I believe it only makes Brown appear more heroic. Brown's raid brought much attention to the moral question of slavery. I was also struck by Brown's willingness to accept his fate. Rather than acting a coward, Brown's acceptance of the consequences for his actions depicts a hero. Even while in prison, Brown still felt obligated to spread his beliefs to his pro-slavery visitors: "I endeavor to improve them faithfully, plainly, and kindly." Brown's actions were motivated by his desire to bring good, and were not intentionally malicious. Although it is likely Brown knew his plan was not going to work, I believe he intended to shock the nation with his actions and spark something greater than would have been possible for him to do on his own. Terrorist? Perhaps in the eyes of those living in the country at the time, but if Brown had not made a stand against slavery, it is likely another abolitionist would have. Although Brown's raid at Harpers Ferry was a failure, it can be said his ultimate motive was achieved: in dying for what he believed in, much of the northern public came around to Brown and his cause. Such widespread support for the cause after his death ultimately led to even greater conflicts regarding the moral issue of slavery. Suffice it to say, Brown would have been glad to see slavery was officially abolished in the country with the addition of the thirteenth amendment to the Constitution in 1865. Furthermore,the parallels Horwitz draws between Brown and Lincoln additionally portray Brown in a more heroic light. Brown's lifelong devotion to a moral cause portrays him as a hero in my eyes.
Well, I just finished the book, and I must say that it was here that our essay question really seemed to come to the fore. On the one hand, Brown was apparently all-but-universally admired for his candor and bravery in the face of his impending death. On the other, his obsession with martyrdom and violent rebirth remind a modern reader of the no-less brave men who strap bombs to their chests in a war they believe equally just. Also, it seems that many of those who believed Brown a great man were inclined to question his sanity.
ReplyDeleteWhat struck me as particularly interesting was the legal side of this. It's sickeningly obvious that Brown couldn't have gotten a fair trial, even if he had wanted one, and there was no group within the system that was impartial enough to help him. Of course, this is much clearer in hindsight, which leads me to wonder whether there are groups in this country that really can't get a fair trial. It doesn't seem like any single issue consumes us the way slavery consumed the politicians and intellectuals of the 1800s, but perhaps that is hopeful naïveté. The other part of it is the attempt on the part of Brown's lawyers to have him declared insane. Today, his objection would have meant nothing, as an insane client's opinion would be ignored and the matter would be decided by a psychological evaluation. Of course, some things, such as the stream of petitions demanding that the sentence be commuted, haven't changed in criminal procedure. And comparing Brown's conduct to that of modern criminals, he strikes me as a terrorist more than ever.
I've been thinking about your comment about controversies consuming us today, and after looking at some things about terrorism and John Brown online, I started thinking about abortion. If you look at it, you may even be able to make the stretch it is divided the same way, i.e. pro-slavery South, free North: pro-life South, pro-choice North. Thoughts?
Delete(Sorry, I know this is posted late!)
As Althea mentioned, I think Part III specifically was where the essay question became most evidently controversial. Brown bravely took his death sentence and became a true martyr sacrificing himself to his cause. At the same time, however, Brown provokes a time of terror in the nation that will carry on in sparking the civil war. As I have said before, Brown's mission was not to shed fear onto innocent people in order to impose his beliefs onto others, but, he essentially ended up doing so. It is still hard for me to agree with the fact Brown was a terrorist, again, because of his true desire behind his violence: he did not want to terrorize people as a way to gain power and thus spread his ideas. Brown truly wanted his intense detest for slavery to be heard, and believed violence was the only way to amplify his voice.
ReplyDeleteLastly, his trial left me wondering whether or not his end goal to his mission was to sacrifice himself to set an example and further incite abolitionists. He knew he was going to die, but did he purposefully wait it out until the end in order to make a "courageous" performance before his execution? Although a very valiant character, during battle I do not remember reading about any valorous efforts like Brua.
I was thinking about Jennie's point about sacrificing himself to promote his cause and I fully agree with it but I wonder, where does it begin? There are some interesting points made in the trial that may suggest Brown's whole scheme at Harper's Ferry was a suicide mission and was intended to be that way. For example, the numerous copies of the documents regarding the Provisional Government, some left at the Kennedy Farm and others carried with John Brown. Clearly in doing this Brown wants to get his ideas out there and make sure they are preserved. I think once Brown got to trial he takes the opportunity to do the same but I wonder if it was his plan to get to the stand so he can shout his opinions from the rooftops, so to speak. Not a striking amount of evidence to support this claim but certainly enough to make it a valid question. Thoughts?
ReplyDeleteAfter finishing the book, as much as I would prefer to call Brown a hero, I think that his true specialty was producing fear in others. After the Pottawatomie Massacre, he remarked, "the killing should so terrorize the proslavery camp as to deter future violence." After the Pottawatomie Massacre, which did nothing but provoke violence, he may have concluded that one great violent conflict could end the issue of slavery once and for all. If so, he executed his raid on Harpers Ferry perfectly. Even though it was not a military success, he evoked the fear that would lead to the Civil War.
ReplyDeleteThis then poses the question, as others have mentioned, whether Brown had ever really intended to incite a large scale slave rebellion as he proclaimed to his followers. Brown might have known that his death would have produced a far greater effect than anything he could have done in his life. In addition to Alex's example about Brown leaving the Provisional Government documents around, a few other things seemed to indicate that he never meant to carry out the plan he pitched at the Kennedy farmhouse. During the raid, Brown didn’t bring nearly enough food to support his men and the slaves that were supposed to join them, neglected to tell blacks in the surrounding area of his intentions, and didn’t relocate from the obvious death trap that he had set for himself in Harpers Ferry. I think it is quite likely that John Brown may have expected his grim, but largely effective, fate.
One of the main points that I have learned from Midnight Rising is that it does not matter what the cause is, it’s how you go about affecting change that matters. Despite the fact that I find John Brown’s cause noble and heroic, I cannot call him a hero. His deliberate attempts to plague the South with fear and the violent attack he orchestrated, labels him as a terrorist in my mind.
ReplyDeleteI certainly agree that there is enough evidence to support the idea that the Harpers Ferry attack was a mission for John Brown to become a martyr, not necessarily to free slaves. As Hillman and Alex have said, Brown made no attempt to conceal his documents at the Kennedy Farm, carried incriminating papers with him to Harpers Ferry, did not bring nearly enough food for his men, never spread word to slaves in the surrounding area, and most importantly, left the weapons he was supposed to secure from the armory, completely untouched. However, there is one piece of evidence that Horowitz uses to support Brown’s quest for martyrdom which I was unsure about. I do not know if Brown’s refusal to leave Harpers Ferry (after it became obvious that he would never succeed) was because his true goal was to die for the cause, or if it was simply part of his stubborn nature. Thoughts?
I agree with your evaluation of Brown, that he either had to have intentionally planned Harpers Ferry as a suicide mission, or was too stubborn to pull out. However, I believe there are other theories, including believing he was God's chosen one and the Lord would 1. protect him 2. it was his will no matter the turn out. It also could have been he was so sure of his plan, he never believed it could fail, but Brown would have to either be too full of himself and or delusional (which I believe you could argue he was at least one, if not both) to have believed he could storm into Harpers Ferry and take hostages, without any form of retaliation or hitch in his plan.
DeleteI, however, think it is most likely a combination of all the above. I believe Brown was a self-righteous, fanatical, extremely religious, morally blinded man, who, by forming an army of young, impreshionable, glory-seeking men, planned to strike terror into the South, by taking hostages and capturing one of the largest sources of weaponry in the United States in the name of abolishing slavery, with the ultimate goal of either starting a violent slave uprising or "martyring" himself and his boys for the cause, whichever worked out. I believe Brown may have had a whole alphabet of plans, and was likely constantly running scenarios, because despite his inability to manage money, he had a vast knowledge of military strategy, and a charisma which he showed a great aptitude in utilizing to get what he wanted. I wouldn't be surprised however, if Brown, no matter the outcome, planned to die in battle. His constant attempt to barter an escape oportunity, shows to me he most likely thought people would find him more of a martyr if he died fighting than being killed via execution.
(Side Comment: I really liked how in Part III Horwitz compares Lincoln and Brown. I believe this was a great way of showing how the means with which one attempts to achieve a goal determines how the action is viewed.)
Upon finishing Midnight Rising, it is clear John Brown’s death did more for his cause than anything he could have done in life. However, I am still unclear as to if Brown fully intended the raid at Harpers Ferry as a suicide mission. As Hillman and Cashel mention, there is much evidence to support Brown knowing he would be defeated at Harpers Ferry, and perhaps he truly knew this was his fate, but I feel there was also a part of him that hoped he would succeed and live to see the day slavery was no more. Perhaps he realized his death would be something far more pivotal in the fight against slavery than any plan he had, and therefore did not sufficiently prepare for the raid at Harpers Ferry. However, I don’t believe this was the initial intention behind the raid, what with the extensive documentation he made and years and years of planning he endured.
ReplyDeleteTo answer Alex’s question, if Brown’s plan were to fail, he desperately wanted to die fighting for his cause, even asking for a “fighting chance” to escape the town once he was surrounded. I think once Brown knew he was not going to die in battle and the opportunity presented itself to explain his intentions and ideas, he took it without hesitation. Despite the apparent eagerness he explained himself with after his capture, it is clear if his plan were to fail, he wanted to die in battle and not on the gallows. Despite his ultimate sacrifice, I am still unsure whether “hero” is the correct word to describe Brown. Although John Brown and his legacy contributed immensely to the abolition of slavery, he also helped begin the bloodiest war in American history. Then again, perhaps the Civil War was inevitable and would have happened with or without him, and this has me more confused than ever. Thoughts?
Agreeing with Madison primarily, I do not believe John Brown's only goal at Harper's Ferry was to establish himself as a martyr. Although that seems to be the end point of his career, Brown had obvious goals for the abolitionist movement and sacrificed important aspects of his life in the hopes of achieving the freeing of slaves. Despite the almost impossible probability of Brown winning at Harper's Ferry, I believe he gave it everything he had regardless of whether or not he knew the outcome. When he was in jail, he did conclude his death would prove more helpful to the cause than his life, but I do not think that was his ultimate goal. If it were, couldn't he have "sacrificed" himself a lot earlier?
ReplyDeleteAt the start of the novel, I was going back and forth on whether or not Brown was a hero or a terrorist. Upon finishing, I have decided his hero-like qualities greatly outnumber his bad ones. Brown made multiple decisions over the course of his lifetime that I do not agree with personally, but I admire the bravery and courage he possessed in the constant pursuit of the abolitionist movement. Like others in the book, I have been inspired by Brown's persistent efforts and devotion to the freeing of slaves, and I respect him for his goals and accomplishments.
Upon finishing Midnight Rising, in agreement with Lindsey I have concluded that Brown's heroic qualities outnumber his qualities that would define him as a terrorist. I still do not know if Brown intended Harper's Ferry to be a suicide mission, or if he intended to fight another day. Maps have been found suggesting that Brown intended to execute other attacks further into the South. That being said, did he really think he and his men could actually survive this raid with so few of them? Many of his own men believed they were marching to their death behind Brown. This was evident in final letters to their loved ones. I do believe Brown was more than happy to die fighting for the abolitionist cause, battling until the very end. This truly established Brown as a martyr.
ReplyDeletePart III really makes one think about the connection between the raid of Harper's Ferry and the Civil War. Is it clear that the raid of Harper's Ferry increased tensions between the North and the South, but I do not believe the Civil War is a direct result of of the raid. If this attack had never come about, I believe the war would have still happened. Slavery was too complicated of an issue to just disappear by itself, this war was bound to happen sooner or later.
In Part III of Midnight Rising, the impact that Brown had on America was displayed. Throughout his trial, Brown lost and gained supporters. For example, Ralph Waldo Emerson stepped forward after Brown spoke in his defense. Before, he thought that Brown was insane for attacking Harper's Ferry. After, "Emerson reconsidered his earlier stance and became one of the abolitionist's greatest champions" (215). Brown also lost supporters. The members of the Secret Six all separated. Most of them fled to Canada, in fear of getting captured, without even considering to help Brown's cause. Through all this, Brown stayed true to antislavery, even though he could do nothing anymore. The Baltimore American reported that, "Brown was still as determined as ever, justifying his course at Harpers Ferry to the governor and perfectly resigned to his fate" (230). As many have already said, this makes him a martyr.
ReplyDeleteIn the Epilogue, I thought the comparison between Abraham Lincoln and Brown was interesting. LIncoln and Brown both wanted to abolish slavery. Lincoln thought the way to do this was through nonviolence, while Brown took the more violent approach. Lincoln was obviously successful in the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation, but he admired Brown's courage. Lincoln did think it was strange that Brown wanted slaves to participate in the revolt though. Nonetheless, Brown did contribute to the conclusion of the Emancipation Proclamation and opened America's eyes to slavery by inspiring other abolitionists with his bravery and determination.
After finishing Midnight Rising, I have concluded that John Brown is a hero. I do not believe Brown went into Harpers Ferry thinking he would die and become a martyr. Brown had bigger plans for abolishing slavery; however, his plans for social equality were way ahead of his times and I would say insane for the time period. Even though I would call Brown a hero, I also believe he was insane in most of his ideas and some of his actions.
ReplyDeleteComparing Brown to Lincoln strongly displayed the wide range of beliefs and difficulty in abolishing slavery. Brown believed in social equality for whites and blacks, while Lincoln believed whites were the superior race and wanted to relocate the freed slaves back to Africa. This made me realize that, even though Brown failed to free many slaves, he brought a massive amount of attention to the subject of slavery. Harpers Ferry, I believe, brought the inevitable war on slavery to the foreground and greatly helped spark the Civil War. But even after the Civil War was over and all slaves were freed, Brown’s dream of social equality was not reached. This made me think: Did Brown expect to change social equality in his life time or was he hoping his legacy would inspirer others to keep his cause alive?
Now that I have completed the book, I am undecided about my thoughts on whether Brown is a hero, terrorist, or insane. After reading Part II, I was convinced he was a hero; once I finished Part III, I started having second thoughts. Was Harpers Ferry a suicide mission? Did Brown knowingly guide his men, some of which his own sons, do their deaths? On one side, Brown claims his mission did not go as planned. He had good intentions and risked the lives of a few men to free many more men. But, if Brown's men had known it was a suicide mission, they probably would not have joined. Brown changed what he claimed was his plan several times which makes me think there was not a secure plan to begin with. Why would Brown risk the lives of these devoted men by following through with a barely developed and poorly thought out plan? I agree with Cashel that the Harpers Ferry attack was intended to make Brown a martyr, seeing as that is the only reasonable answer to my questions. If Brown never intended to survive the events at Harpers Ferry then a well thought out plan is unnecessary as long as the others think there is one, which Brown successfully accomplished.
ReplyDeleteAfter finishing Midnight Rising, I have to agree with Alex. I believe that John Brown’s raid of Harper’s Ferry was a suicide mission, with one of the objectives being that he could communicate his beliefs to the country through his actions, no matter what the cost. There were many faults in his plans, and Brown had trouble explaining his actions as well. Brown’s reference to the biblical story of Samson is why I believe he knowingly led himself and his men to their deaths. In the story, Samson sacrifices himself to kill his enemies. In the same way, John Brown attacked Harper’s Ferry so that his actions would bring the issue of slavery to the public’s attention. By dying, Brown could be labeled a martyr and the country would be forced to address the issue of slavery. Therefore, through his sacrifice, he laid the foundations for abolishing slavery.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Laura’s question, I think that Brown knew his legacy would help to free slaves. “Brown believed his strike would shock the nation and shake down the pillars of slavery. And he was fully prepared to perish” (239). He recognized that by dying he could set in motion a plan to abolish slavery.
Upon finishing Midnight Rising I mostly agree with what Hillman said. Clearly Brown did not plan out the attack on Harper's Ferry as a true militarist would. Now I know Brown was never in war or the army but any man can correct the mistakes he made. In my part II post, I was taken aback by the many flaws in Brown's plan and wondered why it was as patchwork as it was. Part III has answered my question. I purely believe Brown knew he would be captured and executed as a martyr (unfair to his subordinates I must say) and was willing to sacrifice himself in order to accomplish this goal.
ReplyDeleteOn the question of hero or terrorist, I am forced to side with terrorist. The main example I have is the comparison of John Brown to Abraham Lincoln in the end of part III. Now, this example is partially flawed for it proved Lincoln wasn't as into the cause as Brown however it showed that Lincoln wished for non-violence which exemplified Brown's attack as terrorism. Obviously Lincoln did have presidency during the Civil War but one must wonder if it would be the same if Brown had not attacked...
After finishing Midnight Rising, I have concluded that Brown's raid was a success. Although the raid did not proceed as planned, Brown was successful in helping the abolitionist movement. Having failed with his specific mission to start a rebellion with a slave army, Brown has not failed to help with the greater mission of abolitionism. He succeeded in terrorizing the local population so successfully that at one point a herald announced an attack had begun on another Southern town. Brown's raid brought back the fear of a slave uprising, another small victory. He used his trial and execution as a stage for teaching and explaining the moral reasons for his actions, which led to more support for abolition. Brown was truly honorable throughout his trial and at the time of his execution, unlike many of his coconspirators such as John Cook. Cook thought very differently about his capture and trial, and although he made a dishonorable plea, he was focusing on escape. Brown's success, although not exactly as intended, was huge. Calling him a terrorist or hero seems unnecessary; he was an extreme abolitionist who was devoted to the cause. As I said previously, terrorist or hero, it is all a matter of perspective.
ReplyDeletePart III’s focus on the hurried trials of Brown’s men and the excessive use of the death penalty reveals the unjust legal system of the southern states. With John Brown, his trial and resulting execution seemed to be the time in which he has the most influence of his entire life. The speeches of Brown seem to result in him having a lasting effect on society with the newspapers recording every word he says and in turn broadcasting Brown’s voice across the country. Overall, it is amazing the impact of a group of two-dozen men had on society. In the short term, they managed to scare slave owners across the south with the idea of a potential slave army and in the long term, they made an enormous step towards the abolition of slavery.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that John Brown was a terrorist of his time and a hero in the modern day. He inspired fear in many across the southern states, caused by the murder of many innocent people in both Harpers Ferry and Pottawatomie, all for political gain. By definition it seems Brown was a terrorist. Brown’s overarching goal of ending slavery could be considered by some to nullify his murders of innocent people as now one can see the major effect which Brown had on society as a whole.
Finishing the book did not change my opinions of Brown and his journey at all. I do however conclude that he is not a terrorist, not a hero, but an extremist. Brown is no different than suicide bombers dying for their cause, and terrorizing others to achieve salvation at all costs. While I do admire Brown's determination, and prestigious wit in his court defense, his means were deplorable. The big question is how much of an affect did John Brown's efforts have on the abolition of slavery. Slavery itself was an extremely large elephant in the room, room being America of course. I believe that a practice so inhumane was bound to self terminate regardless of external input. Also, if Brown knew he would be defeated at Harpers Ferry, I continue to wonder, why play when you're going to lose? Although he claims that his death for the cause of abolition was more valuable than his life, it was already broadly understood that slavery was an abhorred practice. I'm sure that without his death and the attack on Harpers Ferry, what we regard today as "American History" would not have changed. However, not much has really changed, racism still exists, and even though there's no slavery today, there are even worse bioethical dilemmas running rampant. Between slavery back then and human trafficking today, maybe it's humanity to blame, not the confederates.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you Chris, except for one small point, I think his raid did go as planned. As is made increasingly obvious in the third section of the book, Brown's plan of a slave uprising was never truly feasible. He just used this plan to get the financial support and manpower to make essentially a suicide mission into Harpers Ferry. The real purpose of his plan was to use the fear and press coverage that his attack provided to spread his message of abolishing slavery. In this respect, his mission was a resounding success.
ReplyDeleteIn addition to spreading his message, Brown also succeeded and pitting the north and south against each other once again. This conflict directly lead to the civil war, and the abolition of slavery. This was caused by, as you said, the differing perspective on his attack. Many in the north viewed Brown as a hero, while almost all southerners thought he was a terrorist, and executed him as such. Brown was planning for his death however, and made full use of his trial to further spread his message.
John Brown's ultimate sacrifice for his cause was the climax to his vehement fanaticism towards the abolition of slavery. The immutable fact that John Brown sparked the American Civil War is only accentuated by his death, which is a grim embellishment to his final plan. He had always planned for Harper's Ferry to fail. He left behind incriminating evidence for the authorities to find, exposing his allies and exciting the South into a frenzy. What do I think of John Brown? A terrorist is a person who incites fear and terrorizes others. By definition he is a terrorist, but some of these comments accuse him of insanity. I will have to disagree with such accusations because I believe there is confusion between insanity and devotion.
ReplyDeleteAs Drew Sigler had said, he greatly succeeded in spreading his message, thus leading to the Civil War and the abolition of slavery. From just this perspective and forgetting for just this moment the massive death toll caused by the war, many would agree they could forgive Brown for the deaths at Harper's Ferry. This raid was the ember that ignited the fire that would engulf the nation in a war over bondage. Ralph Waldo Emerson once said that a hero is someone who "finds a quality in him that negligent of expense, of health, of life, of danger, of hatred, and of reproach... when you have chosen your part, abide by it, and do not weakly try to reconcile yourself to the world." (215) Brown exemplifies these attributes, and do they sound like attributes of an insane man? John Brown held steadfastly to his beliefs and his cause and did what any one would do if they had the courage, take action. Did he go too far with his devotion? I believe he did. But without it, slavery could have continued for many more years. However Brown had his flaws and, for better or for worse, they led him to his final fate. This leads me to my parting words: where would the world be without our Browns?
After finishing Midnight Rising, I must say that I agree with what Althea said about the two sides of John Brown. Although he was admired among nearly all abolitionists, for they deemed the Harpers Ferry raid to be a selfless act on his part, he was still obsessed with becoming a martyr for his cause and making sure that in the “worst event; it [the Harpers Ferry raid] would certainly PAY,” (232) as he always felt it would. But this obsession with martyrdom and proclaiming his cause made Brown appear to be nothing less than a religious fanatic who had sacrificed his men for what he thought was a greater cause. I would like to say that with John Brown’s raid he shed light on the increasing divide that slavery was creating in America and that made him a hero, but I can find no way to justify his actions and his plan.
ReplyDeleteIf Brown had a better plan that would have enabled him to successfully and peacefully take over Harpers Ferry, then he would no doubt be a hero, albeit a vigilante-hero. However, the inadequacy that was seen in Brown’s plan in Part II, coupled with his ideas of fanaticism and comparisons to Samson, make Brown seem like a terrorist. As Patrick said, it appeared that Brown knew he was going to be captured and was willing to sacrifice himself in order to bring down/bring attention to slavery. His raid on Harpers Ferry, it appears, was merely a distraction from his actual plan of martyrdom. As a martyr, John Brown was a hero sacrificing himself for the greater cause; the means in which Brown made himself a martyr were means of terrorism. There is no way I can deny that Brown acted as a terrorist in his raid of Harpers Ferry.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn the grand scheme of things Brown's journey was a success. The attack raised an immense amount of awareness for Brown's abolitionist ideals. And despite this exposure being mostly negative, the raid had an everlasting positive effect. The end of slavery in the US came as a result of the civil war, which was undeniably sparked by Brown and his attack. As Brown's trial got the media attention of the entire country, Brown used it to his advantage to prove he was an admirable man fighting for an admirable goal. For the raid as a whole I have to side with Chris over Drew, I think that even though the raid was a resounding success, it was not a success in the way Brown had envisioned. There was no slave uprising, and media played a bigger role in the notoriety of all that occurred than anything else.
ReplyDeleteDespite Brown being adamantly gallant throughout his trial its proceedings, I still find it hard to call Brown a hero. I see it as Brown's lack of planning in the raid to be foolish, and my childhood understanding of heroes not to be those who lead a suicide mission. There are too many glaring examples of Brown being irresponsible with his followers to deny the claim of insanity any plausibility. From his refusal to plea insanity in court, to his imploration of his wife not to visit him in his final days. Another note to touch upon is my disagreeance with others who have posted before me on Brown's so called intentional martyrdom. I believe that Brown had every intention to walk away from the situation alive, and with his two sons. With his back against the wall, Brown died for his cause but did not intend to when he set off on his journey.
After finishing the book I believe that, like others have said, John Brown did hope to carry out his original plan of creating a massive slave rebellion that would spread across the entire South. However, it seemed that he knew going into the raid on Harper's Ferry how unlikely the success of that plan was. Brown also knew that even if he and his men failed in their mission, something would be accomplished and progress toward their goal would be made. In essence, Brown's real goal was simply to shock the Southern states, and to show the slave owners that there are people out there who will not sit idle and watch slavery thrive. If this in fact was his goal then he did succeed. As much as the white slave owners in Virginia tried to hide it, after the raid on Harper's Ferry they were terrified their slaves rebelling against them.
ReplyDeleteI was also amazed by the manner in which Brown conducted himself in prison and on trial. Even though he knew from the very beginning that he would be put to death for his crimes, he kept a level head and continued preaching his ideas. Perhaps this was his plan from the start, to end up on trial for his life. After the raid people across the entire country, even many abolitionists, had called what Brown did a wicked act of violence. Once he began the explain himself in prison and in court however, the same people began to praise him. Even southerners were impressed by the way he never showed fear or despair. In this way, the time between his capture and his death served an important purpose, and it is possible that he had planned for things to unfold the way they did.
I believe that Part III emphasized the fact that Brown wanted his mission and goals to be known to the public. As Alex cited, he carried numerous documents on him that instantly condemn him as a participant in this upheaval, and he left all of his "official" government files at the Kennedy Farm in plain view of investigation. While in prison, he openly welcomed visitors and reporters, and told of the goal of his failed mission. This brings up the point that his mission may have seemed failed from the start. As I have said in earlier posts, he set out into a slave state with 20 other men to seize a federal property and arm slaves. His management and swiftness were significantly lacking, and his failure to surrender in the engine house raises the question of whether a ploy in his goal of public awareness was self-sacrifice. He certainly succeeded in becoming the spotlight of attention, as Charlestown became a hotspot overnight, with railroads rerouting to make stops there. His trial also showed the public that Brown was vigilant in the face of certain doom, and even while he was on the stand, he still turned the issue into a conflict pitting slavery against freedom. His death awoke the nation, and as Edmund Ruffin put it, would "stir the sluggish blood of the South", and the trial brought Charlestown to "the seat of war." Brown's raid showed American's that slavery was a problem that could not be ignored, and forced them to choose sides in the battle for freedom, ultimately splitting America in the Civil War. Even the authorities in Virginia feared Brown's position and influence, as the military was used to guard Brown against a rescue attempt, and was also used to keep the crowd far enough away to hear any possible last words. These actions were questioned by a New York Tribune reporter; "Why this jealous caution", "it is feared this old man's sturdy truths and simple eloquence will stir a fever in the blood of all who listen." This knowledge that the authorities isolated Brown further elevated the necessity of American's to choose sides in the trial and ultimately, the conflict of slavery versus freedom.
ReplyDeleteUpon completion of the book, I feel as though Brown certainly aided the abolitionist cause more by dying then he ever could have by living. It seems clear that Brown had a sub-plan in his head which he never disclosed to anyone else. His mission never was to escape Harpers Ferry alive, he set out to become a martyr. I believe that the situation worked itself out perfectly for Brown's secret plan, as he was captured alive and given a trial. The time between his capture and his execution was just as important as the raid itself. During this time, Brown impressed and inspired many with his bravery, calmness, and loyalty to the cause. Brown was successful in gaining interest (if not public) in the north, and striking fear in the southern slaveowners.
ReplyDeleteJohn Brown truly was a remarkable man, and throughout the book his loyalty to the cause was on display. However, I was more impressed by the way he conducted himself in court and as a prisoner than anything he did in battle or in preparation. He was able to gain the sympathy and even support of many people based solely on his conduct in court. He never wavered in his answers or intentions. He did not apologize or ask for forgiveness, but instead used this time to send a poignant message to the American people: slavery must end. In the end, call John Brown a hero or call him a terrorist, he truly was the catalyst that marked the beginning of the end fro the most shameful and evil institution in American history.
Despite Brown’s many “terrorist-like” actions, I still perceive Brown as a hero. It does appear that his entire plan from the start was a suicide mission in attempt to plague the South with fear, but even so, his actions were nonetheless for a noble cause. Besides, I find it highly unlikely that Brown was willing to spend years, even decades, planning for a suicide mission that would sacrifice most of the few existing abolitionists at the time, including himself and most of his family. There were holes in his plans, but I believe that was due to his poor leadership/planning skills, perhaps the very quality that proves to be the fatal flaw of Brown as a hero. “By definition”, don’t all heroes have flaws? The murders he committed may have been wrong, but I don’t think a few deaths is enough for Brown to be classified as a terrorist. His courage in the face of death, his readiness to sacrifice himself for his cause - these, and many other traits of John Brown I admire. Weather he is a hero or a terrorist should be an evaluation of him, not his actions.
ReplyDeleteAs others have mentioned, after finishing part III, I found John Brown’s true intentions during the Harpers Ferry raid to be ambiguous. Although there is substantial evidence to show that Brown probably knew he was going die, I agree with Lindsey and Madison in that the Harpers Ferry raid was not initially a suicide mission. Brown was clearly very devoted to the abolitionist cause, so much so that he never doubted or reconsidered his views. It is possible that these strong beliefs clouded Brown’s judgment, giving him false hope that the raid itself would be successful. However, I think it is also possible that Brown understood the event would draw attention and possibly spark future conflict, regardless of whether he and his men survived. This explains Browns willingness to die.
ReplyDeleteJohn Brown showed qualities of both a hero and a terrorist. Brown assisted in the murder of many Americans and sought to “ terrorize” the southerners in order to prevent any retaliation. Contrarily, Brown was very courageous and was devoted to a noble cause. His actions and speeches before and after the raid drew the attention of many, who began to support and admire him. Although Brown made poor decisions and had lapses in judgment, I found his heroic qualities to offset his terrorist like qualities.
Part III emphasized the flaws in Brown's plans. While his motives were justified, his ill-conceived plans were what led to his downfall. It was interesting that Brown admitted that his plans and decision making were faulty, and his leadership inadequate, but he remained so composed and seemingly unperturbed during and after the attack. This leads one to wonder what his true intentions were behind his plans. Did Brown know that he had no chance to beat the South in a military confrontation anyway, but attacked in the hopes of helping others believe a successful assault on slavery was possible? Maybe Brown believed that if he had fled to safety during the attack, he would not have created the same controversy and media attention. He remarked that he advanced his “cause most by dying for it among non-believers”. However, without his attack, no others would have taken the risks that brought about the social change for which Brown passionately fought.
ReplyDeleteEven though most of the country at the time considered Brown a terrorist, it's important to note that the pro-slavery southerners knew at the time the importance of Brown's actions, and that he had started an irreversible chain of events. As others have mentioned, he had an unjust, ridiculously quick trial. After the trial, a nondescript location was chosen for his hanging, since his prosecutors also knew better than to bury him, as his grave would become a memorial. Robert E. Lee and others tried too pass of the attack as just the act of one lunatic, but by this time, did the South even stand a chance against the social change about to be unleashed in the Civil War? So while it is clear that his violence may not have been the right choice morally, and his plans were certainly flawed, in retrospect, the Brown’s efforts were well worth the bloodshed. Brown should be looked upon as a hero, if not for his attack, at least for his revolutionary thoughts of racial equality.
Upon finishing Midnight Rising, I am still skeptical in calling John Brown a hero. Though he was fighting for a noble cause the fact is that he raided a town and killed people. I feel that this is overlooked and curtained because it was in the name of abolition. I agree with Alex in that, if Brown had quietly and peacefully freed slaves without harming anyone, he would be considered a hero. He failed in doing so however; and the raid had casualties. Because of this I cannot call Brown a hero, nor a terrorist. He was simply a man who was willing to give his life fighting and standing by what he believed in.
ReplyDeleteJohn Brown showed extreme strength even when he was captured and on trial. In his own mind, he was on trial with his peers, but Brown believed the ultimate judge was God. I believe Brown was so bold in court and during his sentencing, because he knew that only his image in God’s eyes mattered. Brown continued his boldness even at the gallows. His last words were said to be spoken, “quietly & civilly”. Brown even had to wait around ten minutes for the trap door to drop as the execution service had to be set up. I commend his unnerving personality, as he knew that any fear or despair he showed would only be used against him and his cause. His courage gave his enemies nothing to use against him after he was executed. In conclusion of John Brown’s story, his actions in life had a major effect on the future. Though I still standby in saying he is not a hero, but his actions at Harper’s Ferry had positive results in the rest of the nation. He sparked the idea that something could be done about slavery and that abolitionists didn’t just have to standby and watch in happen in their own country.
After finishing Midnight Rising I can conclude that John Brown is a hero but an insane one at that. Browns assault on Harpers Ferry was a suicidal mission bringing the insane topic into the forefront. While the attack was ill-planned and extremely undermanned it got its point across. Brown used his popularity and military leadership to advance his goal of abolishing slavery. The attack itself set the stage for this in his capture. While in captivity the real hero of John Brown is shown. He repeatedly testifies for himself giving dramatic speeches saying he meant no harm at Harpers Ferry and displaying his true beliefs and goals in life. In Part III everything John Brown has done in his life boils down to the courtroom and his months in jail. All of his experiences throughout his years allow him to share his goals of abolishing slavery to a high profile audience. In this sense his attack on Harpers Ferry was a smashing success because of the publicity the abolitionist movement received.
ReplyDeletePart III also questions Browns strategy in the attack of Harpers Ferry. This part made me turn to a direction of thinking he was a little bit insane. With all of his years of military experience wouldn't he know his forces were outnumbered? wouldn't he know it was close to suicidal? Each of the questions provided in Part III drew me closer to believing the insane argument. While John Browns attack on Harpers Ferry can be deemed insane by many his time in captivity and his death proved to be much more influential to the abolitionist movement than the attack could have ever been.
To play devil's advocate, I will remain solid in my opinion that John Brown was a terrorist. As many of Brown's companions later stated, Brown did not choose Harper's Ferry for its slave population nor armory, but for the shock value and panic that it would cause. Think about it, Brown showed the South that abolitionists could not only organize themselves into an armed force that could free slaves, but could strike at the heart of the South at any given moment. Brown wanted to spread this fear and wanted others to spread it further until slavery would finally be abolished. This tactic that he used is no different than the Boston Bombings or 9/11 in that an attack was made so close to home that people don't feel safe even in their own country.
ReplyDeleteIn the end, though, did Brown succeed? As mentioned in Midnight Rising, there was and still is controversy about whether the Civil War started at Harper's Ferry or at Fort Sumter. Even if war was not formally declared after Harper's Ferry, Americans knew that they had to take sides, either they were pro-freedom or pro-slavery, after the raid there was no luxury of middle ground. The South was terrified and outraged that the North was not vehemently persecuting John Brown, and showed how careless it was to their way of life and freedoms. Southerners knew that the North wasn't going to support them so they had to support themselves by breaking off from the union. I believe that John Brown did not single-handedly start the Civil War, but the consequences of his actions made every American call out for a bloodletting, no matter which side he or she was on.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBrown, dissatisfied with a pacifist approach to abolition, gained followers in the North in order to raid Harper's Ferry. He intented to arm slaves with weapons from the aresenal, but his plan quickly fell apart and within 36 hours Brown's men had fled, been killed, or were captured. Although the raid had somewhat "failed", federal forces seizing Brown caught the entire nation's attention. Brown had ultimately accomplished his goal of giving the country a jumpstart in ending slavery. Southerners became more aware of the what was to come and feared this was just the begining of Northern uprisings agaisnt slave labor.
ReplyDeleteMany have argued that it was Brown's plan from the begining to die in Harper's Ferry raid, regardless if that was the case, Brown stayed true to his cause throughout his life and his political/religious career. Brown refusing to plead insanity brings me back to the idea that he wanted to be true to his cause and honor his family name without being labeled "lunatic" or an "deranged".
Part III has led me to my final conclusion, that even though I was previously unsure of my standings, I am now positive I would regard John Brown as a hero. John Brown brought the issue of slavery to the frontline of the nation’s problems; drawing public attention to the sinful deeds of the slaveholders, forcing Americans to chose a side in the American Civil War. His actions and words empowered future political leaders such as Abraham Lincoln to address the issue of slavery, and I believe that without John Brown’s deeds, the use of slavery would have been around much longer before it would eventually die out on its own. It was evident that the slaveholders were not going to abandon their usage of slaves by suddenly recognizing it as morally wrong: the Southerners were going to fight back to keep slavery. John Brown did strike fear into the hearts of Southerners, but he believed in order to grasp all of the nation’s attention, he needed to take a firm stand in order for his message to be heard.
ReplyDeleteHis bravery cannot be matched, and I greatly admired his perseverance to keep fighting to make a difference till his last moments of life. His selfless motives portray his valiant character, and I was amazed by the insight in his wise words and the boldness in which he answered questions on his movement. John Brown was fearless in his pursuit to rid the world of slavery, and as a hero, his actions lead to the freedom of slaves, and eventual racial equality. Without John Brown’s role in history, I fear the issue of slavery could have gone unmatched for even longer, if there was no man as courageous as John Brown to take the lead.
Brown's dedication to the cause became something that I greatly admired in this last section of the book. From prison, John Brown continued to inspire so many other abolitionists to act up against the proslavery South. His fight against slavery soon propelled into a war against slavery, which is evident from the countless rallies held in Brown's favor, and the undeniable influence Brown had on future civil rights leaders such as Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King Jr. Dedication and courage are two very important characteristics that make John Brown a hero. Brown had the courage to face the death penalty, and the dedication to make his cause known even from prison. John Brown literally took his fight against slavery to his grave, and even beyond that.
ReplyDeleteThe true mark of a hero is shown even after they are gone. A true hero will inspire people to keep fighting for their cause even after they have died, which is exactly what John Brown did. Even after his death there were countless rallies held in support of him, and the abolitionist movement grew to hold even greater influence throughout the nation.
In the beginning of the book I was skeptical about calling Brown a hero, but by the end I had been convinced he was. By taking his execution so bravely and for so strongly standing up for what he believed him I think thats what made him a hero. The characteristics of a hero consist of a man's noble qualities and if Brown's sacrifices and devotion to abolition don't count for a noble quality then I'm not sure what would. Brown dedicated his life to the fight against slavery because he felt as a human it was his moral obligation to give those who's rights had been taken away the ability to get them back. Although some may argue his religious extremism and slight insanity made him a terrorist, I still believe his goal to liberate the slaves is an act of heroism not terrorism.
ReplyDeleteIn the aftermath of Harper's Ferry, it is tempting to call Brown a hero. This is because I am partial to his cause. It is easy to call him a hero because he bravely fought, and ultimately lost his life for a cause I believe in. It must be noted that Brown's actions fit the definition of terrorism to a T: Terrorism (noun),"The use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes"(from dictionary.com). Brown himself said he chose Harper's Ferry as his target because it would strike the most fear into the slave owners. Brown's actions are also seemingly heroic, it cant be discounted that he gave his life for a noble cause. In reality, the difference between a terrorist and a hero is simply what you believe in. For many extremists Bin Laden is a hero, yet to me he is a vile terrorist. If taking an impartial stance, Brown is simply a maniac. Brown allows his beliefs to consume him as his radical thinking eats away his entire life, drawing in many other lives as well. Once possessed by the concept of slavery Brown seemingly loses the ability to think as a reasonable person. Although it is hard to admit, John Brown, a man arguably as influential as Abraham Lincoln in the abolitionist movement, is insane.
ReplyDeleteAfter finishing the third part of Midnight Rising, I have firmly concluded that John Brown was a hero and that his raid on Harper’s Ferry was a success. While reading part III it occurred to me that John Brown did have a backup plan in case the raid was not successful. As Brown was on trial, he admitted to all of the prosecutions and only question the morality of the laws under which he was be prosecuted for. This clearly showed to me that Brown had prepared for the eventual fail of his raid. I believe that Brown’s backup plan was to become a martyr like others have said. This was not a suicide mission or his main goal but I do believe it was his fall back plan. By doing this Brown created a figure that was bigger then his actions or what he could ever become. He was the man who died for what he believed in. Emerson was even quoted saying “(Brown) will make the gallows glorious like the cross.” The sacrifice of his life made a more powerful message then anything he could of done while alive.
ReplyDeleteLooking back on the entire book, it occurs to me how controversial a figure John Brown was. Was he a terrorist, a hero or just crazy? Very few people have been described as all three and all can be validly argued in the case of John Brown. This means I could have a completely different opinion on him then another person has on him. To me though, John Brown was a hero doing what he knew was right.
Like many have concluded after reading part III, I think John Brown is certainly a hero. From reading the above comments I found it interesting that some thought Brown had planned a suicide mission and expected the outcome. In my opinion, Brown did not anticipate being captured and hanged. Although this outcome is obviously not ideal, it was not a complete failure. John Brown's main goal was to abolish slavery and his courageous actions in the Harper's Ferry attack sparked the necessary uprising that would lead to more change. What the abolitionist movement needed most was the support and attention of the people in both the Northern and Southern states and the commotion Brown caused by this attack got everyone's attention. I strongly agree with Osborne Anderson's statement that John Brown "dug the mine and laid the train which will eventually dissolve the union between Freedom and Slavery". In court when Brown's lawyers tried to spin the case to make people sympathetic to John Brown the lunatic, he refused. This shows that Brown was proud of what his mission accomplished and he would stand by it until the end. Someone that courageous, selfless, and devoted should be regarded as a hero.
ReplyDeleteI found it interesting at the end of the book that many of Brown's men did not realize the scale of the master plan. Granted, this could just be a cover-up for the local authorities, but what if Brown intentionally lied to them in order to have a stronger fighting force? This, although a bit extreme, could actually have happened. Many conspirators admitted that they thought Brown was only intending to take the slaves and escort them out of the South, not hold the entire town hostage. Others thought that this was a more widespread revolution-type scenario, with strikes occurring throughout the southern states. On top of that, Brown's composure at the scaffold versus his mens' nervous nature(s) show that Brown expected an end like this, while the others may not have. Brown's credibility is pretty questionable for me.
ReplyDeleteThis credibility issue sways my opinion of Brown to the negative side. He may have had good intentions (the best intentions at the time), but his secrecy made him a shady person in my mind. Also, he enlisted his own family members into a hopeless war, after teaching them of his "God-given" duty for their entire lives. Brown did give them the choice to serve, but to them there was no other option. Those are just some of the factors that make John Brown's identity as a hero or terrorist so blurred for me. There are so many of these little factors that combined to create such a conflicted individual. On one extreme, Brown was a heroic abolitionist fighting for the greater good of mankind. On the other, Brown was a terrorizing antihero looking to complete his task given by God. In any case, John Brown certainly had an interesting life and left quite the legacy behind.
Until recently I believed that Brown was an insane, self righteous, and self driven terrorist. Now analyzing some evidence from parts two and three I discovered and concluded that overall Brown's attack upon Harper's Ferry pushes himself and members of his party into the terrorist category. But his mission, and his cause were truly remarkable. Brown has a charismatic way- this is evident in court the day he was asked if he had any reason for them not to find him guilty. Brown's gift with speech allowed him to change the opinion of him for much of the audience, as a man who simply had "lost his mind", to a man praised by Wise and held up for all to see by Thoreau. However this does not save him. Just because Brown decided to fight bravely for a great cause doesn't make him a hero. Also, as stated above, Brown chose Harper's Ferry for it's strategic shock value.
ReplyDeleteBrown's ultimate goal was to send shock waves, fear, and panic into the hearts of those who lived in the South and or those who owned slaves. Comparing the late 1850's to our modern 2013 I believe that this is truly what makes Brown and his men terrorists. The actions of Brown speak louder than his words. His action was full of terror. I believe that during Part Two he was more cautious, and more caring of his fellow countrymen. But what is a terrorist? We've seen it defined for us above. But there is another definition I found. The word (terrorist) was originally applied to supporters of the Jacobins in the French Revolution, who advocated repression and violence in pursuit of the principles of democracy and equality (Mac/Apple Dictionary). This really hit home when I read it. And I immediately applied it to Brown and his force.
Whether he was modern, or whether he was from 1859, Brown was a force to be reckoned with, and a reprobate.
After finishing part three I saw how people could have many different opinions on whether Brown was a hero or a terrorist. Personally I find it difficult to call him a terrorist because ultimately he was trying to abolish slavery. However I do agree with others in that his specialty was producing fear in others. Through his different raids he sparked the violence that would lead to the civil war. Part three also showed me how much of a hero Brown was. His eternal devotion to the cause up until his very last minutes of life show how committed he was. After his capture he never once turned cynical or became hostile towards his captors. Brown must have known that he was eventually going to die and at some point he must have come to terms with this. At what point this occurred I am not sure. Did he know all along that he was going to be sacrificed, or did it only become clear after his capture? As many others have mentioned above, it is clear that his death aided the cause more than his actions did. The thing I was most impressed with was the way in which Brown conducted himself throughout his trial and in the events leading up to his death. I think these actions display him as a truly respectable man who most definitely began the fight to end slavery. As Douglass says in the epilogue, “ If John Brown did not end he war that ended slavery, he did at least begin the war that ended slavery.” This quote truly displays what Brown set out to do, and the effect it had on others.
ReplyDeleteLike many others, in the beginning of the novel I was unsure whether to call John Brown a hero. After finishing the novel, I would not be able to label John Brown as anything but a hero. Even though some of Brown’s actions can be categorized as terrorism, I still feel that I am unable to label Brown as a terrorist. This is because, throughout the novel, Horwitz continues to emphasize John Brown’s purpose of his actions: to abolish slavery. Also, Brown’s actions can be viewed as courageous and brave. As others have stated, these are heroic qualities. Brown believed in the abolishment of slavery, and continued to pursue that belief until the day he was executed. Like Peter, I was amazed how John Brown handled his execution in such eloquent manner. Brown was strong and civil even on the ride to the gallows, sitting atop his own coffin. From the viewpoint of many antislavery people during this time period, John Brown can be viewed as a martyr. Without the work of John Brown, slavery could have continued for much longer than it had. This is because although his specific plan at Harpers Ferry was unsuccessful, his actions did strike terror in people who were proslavery. John Brown’s actions played a significant role in the abolishment of slavery, thus contributing to the beginning of the Civil War.
ReplyDeleteThe conclusion of Midnight Rising proved very interesting as I began to realize the affect Brown’s actions had on the commencement of the Civil War. I found it became evident that the attempted taking of Harper’s Ferry was necessary for timely abolishment slavery. It seems the North discovered its true position on the matter in light of the controversy, which I believe may not have come about if not for the catalyst the raid represented. Therefore, I think Brown’s actions were just- he had to perform an undesirable deed in order to ¬begin the gradual abolishment of slavery. The death of fifteen men is a tragedy, but it is a small price to pay for the freedom of those who were treated unspeakably during the reign of true terror: slavery. Brown’s actions were undeniably radical; however, the abolitionist cause was making no gains by complaining of the horrors. Something had to be done and John Brown took courageously took matters into his own hands.
ReplyDeleteIn Part III of the narrative, the brave man who fought for a moral cause and inspired the abolitionist movement met his bitter end. During his trial Brown proclaimed “if it is deemed necessary that I should forfeit my life for the furtherance of the ends of justice…I submit. So let it be done (213).” He accepted his death sentence with a calm face and determined posture which many onlookers deemed respectable and a man of vision. However, some people question Brown’s overall plans for the Harpers Ferry raid as he did not seem to follow his plans according to his original intent. Was it Brown’s true intention to transform himself into a martyr all along? Even his followers were not quite sure what Brown’s true plans were and they merely followed his instructions. Osborne Anderson, one of Brown’s men, stated “Captain Brown was all activity…I could not help thinking at times he was somewhat puzzled (237).” This statement raises the question whether John Brown was insane and delusional? During his trial one of Brown’s attorneys tried to introduce evidence claiming that Brown was mentally ill. The defense attorney tried to demonstrate to the judge and jury that John Brown’s best legal defense was in insanity. This was based on the actions of a mentally ill man who tried to execute the most daring act of freeing the slaves. Regardless of his mental status, John Brown was a hero. Although his actions began and ended in violence he did in fact send a message that would catalyze the Civil War and bring an would ultimately end “this Negro question (187).”
ReplyDeleteUpon finishing the book, John Brown makes me think he went on his mission to stir up America, and that’s exactly what he did. As much as we debate if he is a hero or a terrorist and as much as the people of his day did, I don’t believe he cared what anyone thought. He succeeded in bringing up the most heated debate in U.S history to the front of everyone’s mind. I think the true purpose of his attack was a wake up call for society. I cannot call John Brown a terrorist, and I cannot call him a hero. The only thing I can pin him down as is a catalyst. I do give him Brown a lot of respect for being incredibly brave by taking on his own execution and standing up for his cause more adamantly than most people would. To change one of the U.S’s largest flaws takes steps. It took a bold president and a war. Yet it also took an extremist with a sub-par plan and strong beliefs.
ReplyDeleteI finished the book and I still believe that John Brown is a terrorist. He purposely created chaos in Harpers Ferry, VA, which spread throughout the South. His goal was to die in the fight so that he could become a martyr and bring attention to an issue that he felt strongly about like many terrorists do today. Brown used religion to fuel his desire to change and to morally justify his fight to many people who, at the time, didn’t believe in freeing the slaves. Brown was clearly ahead of his time and his goal was good but nevertheless his violent methods made him a terrorist. He spent weeks plotting an invasion into the South, recruited followers of like beliefs, stockpiled arms, and disguised himself so that he could attack Americans—how can he not be called a terrorist? Brown tried to reach as many ears as he could by taking every opportunity he had to write letters or speak with people in order to indoctrinate others with his ideas. Brown attacked his country and many civilians—including African Americans and for this he is a terrorist.
ReplyDeleteIt is important to note that although Brown may be a terrorist be definition, he does not carry all the same negative connotations that the modern day terrorists do. Brown was right in his ideals. He started a conflict that needed to be started and may not have been resolved as quickly without him. Brown was courageous and showed true bravery in his calmness under pressure and in the days leading up to his death. Brown was a great man on a great mission but unfortunately he went about it in a violent way.
Considering the modern day connotations of terrorism, it seems impossible to consider a person both a terrorist and a hero. However, John Brown achieves just that. Though it seems impossible that an act of terrorism can also be an act of heroism, John Browns raid on Harper's Ferry also achieves just that. As terrorism is defined as the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes, whether a to consider a terrorist a hero or not depends on political beliefs. As almost everyone today hates slavery, it is fair to call John Brown a hero. His violent raids and murders were indeed acts of terrorism, but with the goal being the end of slavery, all but the most violent were acts of heroism. Brown's bravery in the face of death made him a martyr, and his raid did eventually become the spark that freed the slaves. His prominent role in freeing the slaves certainly makes him a hero. While he must indeed be called a terrorist by definition, he is still a hero who helped to free the slaves.
ReplyDeleteAfter finishing Midnight Rising, I have maintained my belief that John Brown was neither a hero nor a terrorist, but instead a revolutionary. John Brown committed "terror-invoking" acts, such as the Pottawatomie Massacre and the raid on Harper's Ferry, knowing that his actions would most likely lead to some form of chaos and social disorder targeted at the general public as well as the United States Government. However, what distinguishes John Brown from the normal terrorist was his logical reasoning, benign intent, and beneficial outcome. Sure he killed US citizens, sure he caused the government to send an army detachment to combat him, sure his aim was to stir up a slave rebellion that would have certainly resulted in the deaths of many others, but he did it all not just out of religious belief, but in protection of the the rights of United States citizens. More so, the results of his failed raid on Harper's Ferry was enough to spark the civil war, which as we know was the greatest step towards ending slavery.
ReplyDeletePeople of his time would have seen Brown as the modern day "terrorist", but being able to reflect upon history I am certain that he was a revolutionary.
After finishing this book, I still stand by my opinion that John Brown was a terrorist. His attack on Harper’s Ferry reaped neither reward, nor success. Although it did bring Brown fame in both a positive and negative way. All but five members of Brown’s followers/army were caught or killed, Harper’s Ferry was not rid of its slave population, many were hurt or killed, and John Brown himself was tried and found guilty (and therefore hanged). Although the trial never would have been a fair one, I still believe he would have been found guilty either way. Brown did manage to inspire panic in the owners of slaves as they feared a rebellion from their own slaves. He also inspired a nation to look at the mixed society they had created.
ReplyDeleteAlthough Harper’s Ferry was a sad, unfortunate and unsuccessful affair, John Brown did manage to raise the question of slavery and its affects on society in a moral sense. People began to debate whether abolitionists had a good point (or not). It’s sad to think that an act of terrorism can actually spark a debate that could’ve been accomplished without the violence. Even abolitionists at the time such as Horace Greeley of the New York Tribune, disagreed with Brown’s crazed methods and believed slavery could be abolished in a more peaceful manner and that Brown was indeed misguided and insane. Brown’s raid could also be considered the first blood shed of the Civil War, or the war against slavery. I still don’t agree with his methods of using violence on violence, but by compromising his own principles, he did get this country to think about its moral principles and the inhumanness of slavery, which was what he partially wanted in the end. He may have raised many good points, but his attack was inexcusable, unorganized affair that once he put his foot in, could not get it back out. I cannot commend him for any of his actions, no matter how good the cause was, as he committed crimes against his own citizens and helped create a foundation for one of the bloodiest wars in history.
I disagree with some of my classmates that have posted earlier this summer based on the belief that violence was the only means possible to start the debate that ultimately led to the abolition of slavery. I believe that John Brown recognized the fact that nothing was being done to stop the evil practice that was thriving in the South. As we learned in Part I, John Brown lived in a time where "dough-faced" presidents were in control of the country. These leaders were among some of the weakest the United States has ever seen. They either catered to the wants of the South, or were frightened by the idea of war, so they let the South do what they pleased. In addition to weak leadership, at this time in history, abolitionists were considered to be a radical group of thinkers. Even Abraham Lincoln, denied being an abolitionist in the famous Lincoln Douglas debates in 1858, just one year before the raid on Harper's Ferry. I do not think that it would have been possible to end slavery in a peaceful way at this time considering no abolitionist groups were gaining enough traction to start anything by non violent means. This was a time when violence was the norm. Southerner's were killing Free State men before the Harper's Ferry events even occurred.
ReplyDeleteThe raid sparked political debate and led to the abolition of slavery after the Civil War, and although the war was a terrible and bloody one, I believe that it was necessary to change America for the better and abolish the immoral practice of slavery. Osborn Anderson, one of Brown's five men that escaped Harper's Ferry wrote an account of the mission after reaching Canada. Despite the attack's failure, he wrote, John Brown "dug the mine and laid the train which will eventually dissolve the union between freedom and slavery" (199). I stand by my opinion that I had after Part I of the book and agree with Anderson. For this reason I consider John Brown to be a hero, and not a terrorist.
It is hard growing up in Marblehead, a Northern town in 2013, without feeling sympathetic to the cause of Brown, because we all want the slaves to be free and equal. Having a minimal understanding of John Brown and his mission prior to reading this book, I would have been able to make the claim that he was a hero. However, after reading Midnight Rising, I have to force myself to look objectively at the actions of Brown and label him a terrorist. For a decade Brown terrorized the United States, killing civilians and creating chaos in support of the abolitionist movement. One must no forget that Harper's Ferry was national territory, thus making Brown in his attack an enemy of the state, not of the "Peculiar Institution", slavery. As many have mentioned before me, what seems to be the major outcome of the raid is the shock value it garnered nationwide, and the fear it struck in the hearts of slave owners.
ReplyDeleteIn death, Brown was a martyr. A martyr however, is not always a hero. If they were the same, then someone who kills themself in a carbombing for Al-Qaeda, killing innocent bystanders is a hero, which is clearly not the case. In my opinion, Brown knew he was planning a doomed attack, but was to blinded by his fanaticism to change course. Towards the end of the book, this seemed more and more the case as Brown truly milked every minute before his execution to the fullest, writing and letting the world know of his cause to garner support for the abolitionist movement.
Although I personally cannot condone the actions of Brown, regardless of intent, one must commend the bravery and resolve shown by Brown in his final month of life. These two traits make Brown in my opinion not only a terrorist, but an American icon.
After reading part III, I am convinced that John Brown is a hero and a lunatic. Although the raid of Harpers Ferry initially was a failure because the intended goal was not met and many died, it paid off in the long run. This one single event started a chain reaction that resulted in the Civil War and the end of slavery. All it took to achieve this was one courageous man that was willing to risk everything and devote his life to abolition of slavery. That one man was John Brown. The reason that things worked out so well was because of Brown’s bravery, courage, and self respect. These are classic characteristics of a hero. It was clear to everyone he met that he was a genuine man and the way he carried himself demanded respect. Brown managed to think so far ahead that he knew success would come one way or another.
ReplyDeleteThough John Brown had all the characteristics of a hero, he also had the characteristics of a lunatic. A lunatic is a person whose actions and characteristics are marked by extreme recklessness. John Brown’s plan to raid Harpers Ferry was reckless because he knew that things might not end well and he was willing to risk his life for his cause anyway. Fortunately for Brown, his recklessness was worth it in the long run and made him an important person in American history.
My greatest difficulty with this reading has been how often I find myself questioning my own morals as I attempt to label John Brown. My curiosity had me reading the comparison of Brown to Lincoln repeatedly. Tony Horwitz best exemplifies their divergence with the words "unlike Brown, he was willing to reconsider his views" (p.278). Brown maintained the same belief in page one as he did facing an impending death. And although it was Browns actions that enhanced Lincolns campaign, their methods were polar. Lincoln achieved his goal through aiding the slaves as opposed to attacking their masters. It is for that reason that when crediting the lack of slavery in America the word emancipation is used not raid. Perhaps it was Lincoln's flexibility most vital to the Emancipation Proclamation. Brown executed his own plan flawlessly, Lincoln however executed a plan of all anti-slavery Americans. I believe that I have been unable to label Brown because of my similarities to Lincoln rather than Brown. Unlike some readers who refused to change opinions and even attacked those with opposing ones, I remained willing to reconsider. There were times when I labeled him as insane, heroic and terroristic. However just as often I found reasons he was none of the above. I found that Brown, just as all humans, was a spectrum of characteristics rather than three solid lines. As a final conclusion I believe John Brown is not only a hero to slaves but a terrorist to slave masters, all the while being beautifully insane.
ReplyDeleteTowards the end of the novel it became more evident to me that John Brown resembled a hero, however I am still skeptical about calling him this because of his ruthless actions at the Pottawatomie Massacre. I found it interesting that towards the end of the book he made it clear that he had no intentions of harming anyone unless it was an act of self-defense. Yet, he invaded people’s homes and not only shot but tortured pro- slavery advocates.
ReplyDeleteOn the contrary, in the beginning of John Browns mission people strongly opposed his actions and called him insane. However, many people even those who were pro- slavery or simply did not agree with what he did came to realize that Brown had a noble cause. His poorly planned invasion had several negative effects, although it transformed the view that some people had on slavery. Abolitionists were deeply inspired and encouraged by his brave ambitions and would continue to carry out Browns dream of abolishing slavery after his demise. John Brown created awareness about freeing slaves from bondage and expressed that his goal was not to kill civilians which proves he became a hero even if he previously was seen as only a terrorist. He also demonstrated genuine bravery and a composed appearance through his trials and execution. John Brown had clearly left his mark by motivating abolitionist to carry on the battle against slavery even after the raid on Harpers Ferry.
I was particularly struck by the widespread panic throughout the South sparked after the raid at Harpers Ferry. The resulting fear makes it seem as though Brown was a terrorist. However, I believe it only makes Brown appear more heroic. Brown's raid brought much attention to the moral question of slavery. I was also struck by Brown's willingness to accept his fate. Rather than acting a coward, Brown's acceptance of the consequences for his actions depicts a hero. Even while in prison, Brown still felt obligated to spread his beliefs to his pro-slavery visitors: "I endeavor to improve them faithfully, plainly, and kindly." Brown's actions were motivated by his desire to bring good, and were not intentionally malicious. Although it is likely Brown knew his plan was not going to work, I believe he intended to shock the nation with his actions and spark something greater than would have been possible for him to do on his own. Terrorist? Perhaps in the eyes of those living in the country at the time, but if Brown had not made a stand against slavery, it is likely another abolitionist would have. Although Brown's raid at Harpers Ferry was a failure, it can be said his ultimate motive was achieved: in dying for what he believed in, much of the northern public came around to Brown and his cause. Such widespread support for the cause after his death ultimately led to even greater conflicts regarding the moral issue of slavery. Suffice it to say, Brown would have been glad to see slavery was officially abolished in the country with the addition of the thirteenth amendment to the Constitution in 1865. Furthermore,the parallels Horwitz draws between Brown and Lincoln additionally portray Brown in a more heroic light. Brown's lifelong devotion to a moral cause portrays him as a hero in my eyes.
ReplyDelete