Honors section discussion questions: John Brown, Terrorist?
Make sure you have done the assigned reading, especially the material through 1860 in the textbook and Henry David Thoreau's "Plea for Captain John Brown," available in the back of Clotel or here. [If you still feel like you need to know more about Brown to write or talk about him, look at his Wikipedia entry or this page at PBS.]
Were northern writers like Thoreau right to make Brown into a hero? Brown's reputation has waxed and waned, but he has always had his admirers, like John Steuart Curry, painter of the controversial Kansas State Capitol murals. [For more on Curry and the murals, see this page from the Kansas State Historical Society or listen to this PBS segment on him.] His standing among historians is probably higher right now than it has ever been. Was John Brown a terrorist?
Answer the bolded questions in the comments below, and also consider some follow-up questions for class:
Can political violence that includes civilian targets (as good a definition of terrorism as any) ever be justified, in any situation? What about a situation, like slavery, in which the perpetrators of tyranny are a whole class of private individuals in addition to government officials? As further food for thought, look at "David Walker's Appeal", along with William Lloyd Garrison's response to it.
Labels: Brown, honors, questions, slavery, terrorism, violence
posted by Jeff Pasley at 10:33 AM
7 Comments:
I feel that John Brown could very well be considered a terrorist. If we compare John Brown's armed attack on proslavery settlers in Kansas and raid of Harper's Ferry to armed attacks of Middle Easter militants on supposedly innocent civilians, the similarity of attitude is uncanny. Both Brown and the militants believe of their movements, "It is, in my opinion, the greatest service a man can render to God" (Brown 508). Misguided thought that violence is a "godlike" solution to a conflict is a characteristic of terrorism. Furthermore, Thoreau's portrayal of Brown as a hero is incorrect and possibly dangerous, as it serves to perpetuate violence as a means of expression and conflict resolution.
-Were Northern writers like Thoreau right to make Brown into a hero?
It is a writer’s job to make the ordinary seem interesting. Making Brown into a hero creates an interesting story. As a student of the journalism school, I am well aware that writers often give things a fictional or exaggerated edge to cause more people to read their work. Thoreau was completely within his rights to portray Brown as a hero. In addition, making Brown a hero helped Thoreau share his opinion on the war with more people.
-Was John Brown a terrorist?
I think that Brown’s actions are comparable to those of a terrorist…however the outcome was far less fruitful than the incidents we associate with terrorism today. I believe that Brown had a right to his opinion, but his action was so drastic that it could very well be considered terrorism. However, I have to side with John Brown in that I believe that slavery is entirely unjust and his actions were, although possibly a form of terrorism, extremely brave.
-Was John Brown a terrorist.
I believe that John Brown was a terrorist, but in many ways, a righteous one. His actions were indeed wrong, but his motivation was just. Yet by him killing people, he is bringing himself to the slaveholders level. As the old saying goes "two wrongs don't make a right". Was violence the only option for people like John Brown, or was there another way they could have helped put an end to slavery without needless killings?
This poses a particularly difficult problem. History is constantly rewritten by the victor. This idea implies that no matter what really happened with John Brown we do not currently know the full truth to this question. Here, though, I will presume to make an argument.
Accepting Dr. Pasley's definition of terrorism, John Brown could easily be considered a terrorist. If, however, we were to define the term civilian as one posing no immediate or potential threat to one's person or country then we may receive a different answer all together. Under this definition of the term civilian, the ones attacked in Kansas and at Harper's Ferry are not civilians.
Terrorism is defined for our purposes as armed action against civilians. Accepting this definition makes those attacked not civilians. Therefore, John Brown could not be a terrorist as he did not attack civilians.
One of the most influential thinkers of Western thought, Aristotle, argues, justly in my opinion, that in all qualities and actions there is a mean. This mean is what we should strive for as the "most just and fine" (Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics) action. John Brown did commit a very brave act -- brave nearly to the point of rashness. As rashness is more like bravery than cowardice is, it is easy to see how one would then suppose that John Brown was unqualifiedly brave, instead of brave tempered by the word rash. As the mean is what all strive for, John Brown should not be treated as a virtuous person but as a rash person.
Due to John Brown expressing no admirable quality, the Northern authors are incorrect in their portrayal of John Brown as a hero. They have, and continue, to glorify an unnecessarily violent person who sought to overthrow the rightful government of the people through unpopular (popular in this context referring to less than a majority supporting it) instigation of war.
The Civil War has also been spoken of as a "Revolution of the North Against the Constitution" (John W. Daniel addressing the General Assembly of Virginia, 1860). John Brown was clearly an instigator in this revolution. Instigating a revolution against a right government is never condoned and should never be glorified as an heroic act.
As a rash man and instigator of revolution John Brown was never a hero and has never deserved to be treated as such. John Brown, however, did not commit any terrorist acts when attacking settlers in Kansas or on the raid of Harper's Ferry. Both of these locations had the real possibility of becoming institutions and even strongholds of enemy combatants. This ensures that John Brown falls short of being classified as a terrorist. John Brown was a fanatic, misguided soul who will continue to be misunderstood by history -- in his favor unfortunately.
I believe that John Brown could be thought of as a terrorist. Although his actions were clearly brutal, his intentions were right. We see terrorism as violent and sending a terrifying message, and even though John Brown's actions were violent, his message was not terrifying, but more motivating to the other people who wanted slavery to end.
Were Northern writers like Thoreau right to make Brown into a hero?
- I very much believe that John Brown should be viewed at as a martyr and a hero. He's a man who's given up his way of life to fight for a cause that violates his moral judgement. Unlike others, he firmly believes that political action will be unsuccessful in freeing slaves, and that the only sure way of gaining liberty for blacks is physical violence. As sad as it seems, I believe Brown was right. He wanted change to occur in his own lifetime, not in the distant future after his death.
Was John Brown a terrorist?
-I do not belive John Brown was a terrorist, although his actions were terrorist-like. Brown was fighting against people and slave owners who had terrorized their slaves for generations and centuries, and more harm would be done if Brown had done nothing than if Brown had taken direct action.
I believe that a very large majority of northerners viewed Brown as a hero for the mere fact that he finally fought back. For years the northerners watched the southerners use violence as a way to solve things while they tried to use words. In Thoreau’s writings, he encouraged people to get involved and actually do something, which is what Brown did. I believe northerners viewed John Brown’s actions simply as a response to numerous occasions of violence committed by the south.
I do not believe John Brown to be a terrorist because I believe he was just reacting to the harassment southerners were displaying towards the free soilers. I believe Border Ruffians were just as bad, if not worse than John Brown’s actions by using violence against people who even spoke about anti-slavery in the mid 1850’s. I think Brown’s attack had some similarities to terrorist attacks but I do not see him as a terrorist; I see him as a man who finally took action.
Post a Comment
<< Home