NationStates Jolt Archive

How do you view John Brown (1800-1859)?

I personally view the man as a hero. He was standing up against the evils of slavery in the south. He took some very drastic actions, but I believe he had no choice. Slavery would never end in the south through peaceful means and John Brown saw that. It was a tragic era in US history, but Brown took up the fight and while he still may be hated in the South, I respect the man for his courageous actions to help free the slaves. John Brown said that slavery would only be ended in bloodshed. He was tragically proven correct 2 years after his death when the Confederate states suceeded.

Oh, just a little historical note. If you've ever heard the song "Battle Hymn of the old Republic," the tune was one that was orinally written for the song "John Brown's Body."

How do you view John Brown (1800-1859)?

I personally view the man as a hero. He was standing up against the evils of slavery in the south. He took some very drastic actions, but I believe he had no choice. Slavery would never end in the south through peaceful means and John Brown saw that. It was a tragic era in US history, but Brown took up the fight and while he still may be hated in the South, I respect the man for his courageous actions to help free the slaves. John Brown said that slavery would only be ended in bloodshed. He was tragically proven correct 2 years after his death when the Confederate states suceeded.

Oh, just a little historical note. If you've ever heard the song "Battle Hymn of the old Republic," the tune was one that was orinally written for the song "John Brown's Body."

Well intentioned, complex, messianic, blood thirsty, morally correct, nut-job.

Thats my basic summing up of him.

Hero. He was an extremist, but I agree with Barry Goldwater that extremism in the cause of liberty is not a vice. He was a man who fought for freedom and sacrificed his family and his life.

I'm still debating. Was the armory he raided a state or Federal armory, or does that not matter in terms of treasonous behaviour? (been a while since I studied the constitution, lol)

It wasn't his place to go about correcting the wrongs of slavery through a campaign of violence.

John Brown? That's the most generic White Male Anglo/American name ever.

I'm still debating. Was the armory he raided a state or Federal armory, or does that not matter in terms of treasonous behaviour? (been a while since I studied the constitution, lol)
For some reason I think it was a state one. He was never charged by the federal government. The state of Virginia charged him and executed him after his "trial." (He never could have a real trial with those redneck slave owners.)

He was a hero and a traitor, but there's no option for both. :(

I personally view the man as a hero. He was standing up against the evils of slavery in the south. He took some very drastic actions, but I believe he had no choice. Slavery would never end in the south through peaceful means and John Brown saw that. It was a tragic era in US history, but Brown took up the fight and while he still may be hated in the South, I respect the man for his courageous actions to help free the slaves. John Brown said that slavery would only be ended in bloodshed. He was tragically proven correct 2 years after his death when the Confederate states suceeded.

Sounds like a righteous revolutionary. Like Marx he believed in the necessity of conflict.

For some reason I think it was a state one. He was never charged by the federal government. The state of Virginia charged him and executed him after his "trial." (He never could have a real trial with those redneck slave owners.)
In that case I'm regarding him with the view that he's something of a "fallen" (to the wrong tactics, that is) hero: he actually had good intentions but was nuts.

John Brown? That's the most generic White Male Anglo/American name ever.
Yep. He was a pretty ordinary looking guy too. Just basically blended in wherever he went.

http://i1.tinypic.com/o9eqg9.jpg

In that case I'm regarding him with the view that he's something of a "fallen" (to the wrong tactics, that is) hero: he actually had good intentions but was nuts.

I would agree.

Hero. He was an extremist, but I agree with Barry Goldwater that extremism in the cause of liberty is not a vice. He was a man who fought for freedom and sacrificed his family and his life.
I agree 100%. He may have been violent, but the blood he shed helped unify abolitionists and the anger generated around his execution probably had some role in helping Lincoln get votes.

John Brown's body lies a-mouldering in the grave;
John Brown's body lies a-mouldering in the grave;
John Brown's body lies a-mouldering in the grave;
His soul's marching on!

Chorus:

Glory, halle—hallelujah! Glory, halle—hallelujah!
Glory, halle—hallelujah! his soul's marching on!

He's gone to be a soldier in the army of the Lord!
He's gone to be a soldier in the army of the Lord!
He's gone to be a soldier in the army of the Lord!
His soul's marching on!

John Brown's knapsack is strapped upon his back!
John Brown's knapsack is strapped upon his back!
John Brown's knapsack is strapped upon his back!
His soul's marching on!

His pet lambs will meet him on the way;
His pet lambs will meet him on the way;
His pet lambs will meet him on the way;
They go marching on!

They will hang Jeff. Davis to a sour apple tree!
They will hang Jeff. Davis to a sour apple tree!
They will hang Jeff. Davis to a sour apple tree!
As they march along!

Now, three rousing cheers for the Union;
Now, three rousing cheers for the Union;
Now, three rousing cheers for the Union;
As we are marching on!

It wasn't his place to go about correcting the wrongs of slavery through a campaign of violence.

Whose place was it? As violent as slave owners were, I'd say John Brown was holding back a bit in comparison. Campaigns of peace werent exactly working to abolish slavery.

Whose place was it? As violent as slave owners were, I'd say John Brown was holding back a bit in comparison. Campaigns of peace werent exactly working to abolish slavery.
I agree. I mean we all know how much bloodshed the Compromises of 1820 and 1850 avoided. The peaceful attempts just delayed the bloodshed and extended the amount of time the slaves faced the brutality of an overseer's whip.

See, I thought you were talking about James Brown, and it made me feel good!

John Brown? Much less funky.

Whose place was it? As violent as slave owners were, I'd say John Brown was holding back a bit in comparison. Campaigns of peace werent exactly working to abolish slavery.

Ideally, the government. I know idealism doesn't always work out, but if every person who felt passionately about a cause raided a federal weapons depot and raised a militia intent on destroying as much of the evil as they could, our nation would collapse.

See, I thought you were talking about James Brown, and it made me feel good!

John Brown? Much less funky.

James Brown helped free the funk.

(He never could have a real trial with those redneck slave owners.)
It's not exactly like he could make a case for not having done it, and the state isn't going to accept that you were justified in your actions.
So, he got what was coming to him, "justice" in a way.

See, I thought you were talking about James Brown, and it made me feel good!

John Brown? Much less funky.
They are tied together because if it wasn't for John Brown and the other abolitioinists, James Brown would be a slave picking cotton for dumb rednecks in Ala-fucking-bama.

I agree. I mean we all know how much bloodshed the Compromises of 1820 and 1850 avoided. The peaceful attempts just delayed the bloodshed and extended the amount of time the slaves faced the brutality of an overseer's whip.

*nod*

There was an extreme amount of bloodshed during the ''peaceful attempts" and long after slavery was abolished. It was ok for the whites to go around bashing the heads in of black babies to save on ammo, and it was ok for them to rape black women then kill their husbands..... but this John Brown guy was a monster!

It's not exactly like he could make a case for not having done it, and the state isn't going to accept that you were justified in your actions.
So, he got what was coming to him, "justice" in a way.
You are right. He and Lincoln are martyrs of the abolitionist movement.

James Brown helped free the funk.
http://i1.tinypic.com/o9foxv.jpg

There was an extreme amount of bloodshed during the ''peaceful attempts" and long after slavery was abolished. It was ok for the whites to go around bashing the heads in of black babies to save on ammo, and it was ok for them to rape black women then kill their husbands..... but this John Brown guy was a monster!
That's because the rednecks didn't see the blacks as people. I know it's sad, but that's how they saw it. I wish Brown had succeeded in taking the arms at Harpers Ferry and armed the slaves. I'd love to see what would've happened if the slaves had the ability to shoot the overseers and plantation owners.

He is legally a traitor, but morally a hero. Oh, and he wanted to be hung. He realized that the movement needed a martyr.

That's because the rednecks didn't see the blacks as people. I know it's sad, but that's how they saw it. I wish Brown had succeeded in taking the arms at Harpers Ferry and armed the slaves. I'd love to see what would've happened if the slaves had the ability to shoot the overseers and plantation owners.
Ahh, glorious revolution.

I live in a place where black people are still uneasy about going into a store if two white guys wearing overalls are nearby.

Ahh, glorious revolution.
No you wouldn't. If there had been a general slave revolt the Union army would have come in and put it down by force and the racists would have pointed to the deaths of whites at the hands of the blacks as an excuse for never giving the black people equal treatment if not as an excuse for genocide of Black people.

No you wouldn't. If there had been a general slave revolt the Union army would have come in and put it down by force and the racists would have pointed to the deaths of whites at the hands of the blacks as an excuse for never giving the black people equal treatment if not as an excuse for genocide of Black people.
What if the blacks used their arms to get a hold of more weapons, and defeated the union army, which was very poorly trained at the time?

No you wouldn't. If there had been a general slave revolt the Union army would have come in and put it down by force and the racists would have pointed to the deaths of whites at the hands of the blacks as an excuse for never giving the black people equal treatment if not as an excuse for genocide of Black people.
It probably would have led to the Back to Africa movement winning. I think they almost got their way shortly after the Civil War anyway.

How do you view John Brown (1800-1859)?

hero. too bad the plan didn't quite work out, it'd have been nice to have the south go up in flames due to a massive slave revolution rather than the civil war a few years later.

What if the blacks used their arms to get a hold of more weapons, and defeated the union army, which was very poorly trained at the time?
Poorly trained but funded and supplied by the industrial North still beats completely untrained, surrounded by enemies, and supplied only by what they can loot.

Poorly trained but funded and supplied by the industrial North still beats completely untrained, surrounded by enemies, and supplied only by what they can loot.

depends on how whole heartedly the north would go for putting down a slave revolt. those that cared about the issue were abolitionists, while the rest just didn't care about the south, period.

and i'm not so sure about the outcome anyway - a devoted group can grind down a well-funded and supplied army pretty well, actually.

depends on how whole heartedly the north would go for putting down a slave revolt. those that cared about the issue were abolitionists, while the rest just didn't care about the south, period.

and i'm not so sure about the outcome anyway - a devoted group can grind down a well-funded and supplied army pretty well, actually.
Yeah, worked real well for the Native Americans.

Yeah, worked real well for the Native Americans.

minus the smallpox and related issues, they could have won. the reason that north america is largely populated by the descendents of the colonizers, while other colonized areas (like asia and africa) are largely populated by the same people as before, has a lot to do with disease.

minus the smallpox and related issues, they could have won. the reason that north america is largely populated by the descendents of the colonizers, while other colonized areas (like asia and africa) are largely populated by the same people as before, has a lot to do with disease.
Dude, how many slaves do you think that there were compared with how many white people who would almost all be gunning for them?

I'm still debating. Was the armory he raided a state or Federal armory, or does that not matter in terms of treasonous behaviour? (been a while since I studied the constitution, lol)

It was a federal armory.

And there should be a choice for "both." He was convicted of treason and hung for it.

Dude, how many slaves do you think that there were compared with how many white people who would almost all be gunning for them?

iirc, for the south overall it was 60% white, 40% black. but in the plantation belt blacks held a rather large majority.

Hero. I do not recognize treason against nations, there is only treason against the human species. John Brown justly defended the rights of oppressed human beings, and gave his life for it. That is not treason, that is heroism.

I think the Union woudln't have put down the revolt. The people of the NOrth were predominantly abolitionists. If the Army was ordered to put it down, I bet most would refuse that order.

Whilst they have drastically different connotations, one does not preclude the other.

By his own actions, he was a martyred murderer who did commit treason against his government.

It was just a ****ed up system, and the world still is ****ed up so he didn't do that much in changing it. After all, the concept of "wage slavery" that was thrown about did eventually become the basic truth of the industrial revolution. Nowadays it still exists but we've succeeded in sweeping it under the carpet of the information age....

John Brown is a hero. Sometimes violence is necessary, simple as that.

You can criticize him for using violence when you start whining about how George Washington should have used more peaceful methods. That's it.

bump

Traitor. John Brown may have been an abolitionist, but the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. He was a murderer and a lunatic.

Traitor. John Brown may have been an abolitionist, but the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. He was a murderer and a lunatic.

And slave owners werent?

And slave owners werent?
I think Dr. King says it best:
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. Through violence you may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate. So it goes. Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that. Hate multiplies hate, violence multiplies violence, and toughness multiplies toughness in a descending spiral of destruction.... The chain reaction of evil — hate begetting hate, wars producing more wars — must be broken, or we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation."

John Brown sunk to the level of the very people he was fighting against, and by doing do, he undermined his cause.

I think Dr. King says it best:
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. Through violence you may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate. So it goes. Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that. Hate multiplies hate, violence multiplies violence, and toughness multiplies toughness in a descending spiral of destruction.... The chain reaction of evil — hate begetting hate, wars producing more wars — must be broken, or we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation."

John Brown sunk to the level of the very people he was fighting against, and by doing do, he undermined his cause.



So imagine yourself and your mother, father, wife and children being owned, made to work hard labor, and if you so much as sneezed in the wrong direction, you'd be beat until you pass out. Your wife is taken from you so that the master can rape her at his leisure, and your children are sold or traded to another master and you never see them again. Imagine enduring that day after day, year after year....being spit on, chased, beaten, etc. And all this was perfectly legal. I say that kind of abuse can make someone snap. John Brown may not have been a slave himself, but he witnessed the mistreatment that the slaves had to endure. If it enraged him to the point of violence, then yes, as you said, I suppose violence does breed violence. But who began the violence? It certainly wasnt the slaves. I'd kill my way out of an unimaginable situation like that too....I'm thinking anyone would.

So imagine yourself and your mother, father, wife and children being owned, made to work hard labor, and if you so much as sneezed in the wrong direction, you'd be beat until you pass out. Your wife is taken from you so that the master can rape her at his leisure, and your children are sold or traded to another master and you never see them again. Imagine enduring that day after day, year after year....being spit on, chased, beaten, etc. And all this was perfectly legal. I say that kind of abuse can make someone snap. John Brown may not have been a slave himself, but he witnessed the mistreatment that the slaves had to endure. If it enraged him to the point of violence, then yes, as you said, I suppose violence does breed violence. But who began the violence? It certainly wasnt the slaves. I'd kill my way out of an unimaginable situation like that too....I'm thinking anyone would.
Excerpted from Wikipedia:
Sometime after ten o'clock on the night of May 24, 1856, they took five proslavery settlers -- James Doyle, William Doyle, Drury Doyle, Allen Wilkinson, and William Sherman -- from their cabins on Pottawatomie Creek and hacked them to death with broadswords. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Brown_%28abolitionist%29

These were innocent people!

John Brown sunk to the level of the very people he was fighting against, and by doing do, he undermined his cause.

actually, you mean he catalyzed his cause.

as william lloyd garrison wrote:

"For, by the logic of Concord, Lexington, and Bunker Hill, and by the principles enforced by this nation in its boasted Declaration of Independence, Capt. Brown was a hero, struggling against fearful odds, not for his own advantage, but to redeem others from a horrible bondage, to be justified in all that he aimed to achieve, however lacking in sound discretion. And by the same logic and the same principles, every slave-holder has forfeited his right to live, if his destruction be necessary to enable his victims to break the yoke of bondage; and they, and all who are disposed to aid them by force and arms, are fully warranted in carrying rebellion to any extent, and securing freedom at whatever cost.

It will be a terribly losing day for all Slaveholders when John Brown and his associates are brought to the gallows. It will be sowing seed broadcast for a harvest of retribution. Their blood will cry trumpet-tongued from the ground, and that cry will be responded to by tens of thousands in a manner that shall cause the knees of the Southern slave-mongers to smite together as did those of Belshazzar of old! O that they might avoid all this by a timely repentance!"

actually, you mean he catalyzed his cause.

I meant ideaologically and morally. Politically, he was part of the torch that set the country abalze.

Excerpted from Wikipedia:
Sometime after ten o'clock on the night of May 24, 1856, they took five proslavery settlers -- James Doyle, William Doyle, Drury Doyle, Allen Wilkinson, and William Sherman -- from their cabins on Pottawatomie Creek and hacked them to death with broadswords. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Brown_%28abolitionist%29

These were innocent people!

Define innocent. You clearly have no clue what it means. The cries of African woman and children murdered and raped is what paves the road to hell. I personally hope they suffered.

proslavery settlers...

These were innocent people!

innocent? they actively sought to expand slavery - that makes them slavers, no better than those stealing people from their homes or whipping them in the fields.

I meant ideaologically and morally. Politically, he was part of the torch that set the country abalze.

if ever it is justified to take up arms, it is against slavery

innocent? they actively sought to expand slavery - that makes them slavers, no better than those stealing people from their homes or whipping them in the fields.
How can you, two hundred years from the incident, determine the motives and know the actions of those five men who were murdered?

Excerpted from Wikipedia:
Sometime after ten o'clock on the night of May 24, 1856, they took five proslavery settlers -- James Doyle, William Doyle, Drury Doyle, Allen Wilkinson, and William Sherman -- from their cabins on Pottawatomie Creek and hacked them to death with broadswords. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Brown_%28abolitionist%29

These were innocent people!

(emphaisis mine)

Oh five whole people?

Again, and the slaves werent innocent people? Many more black people were killed, raped and abused during the course of slavery than this uprising you so vehemently disprove of.

(emphaisis mine)

Oh five whole people?

Again, and the slaves werent innocent people? Many more black people were killed, raped and abused during the course of slavery than this uprising you so vehemently disprove of.
Not saying slavery is right. The poll simply asked: Hero or Traitor. Besides, since when do you get to decide how much one persons life is worth? How many killings are nesscessary? If we killed some innocent person for every time someone else was wronged (yes, thats right, John Brown WASNT A SLAVE, and thus had no reason to kill in order to escape from his owner etc), we would have a whole lot of dead people and nothing getting done

Not saying slavery is right. The poll simply asked: Hero or Traitor.

Anyone who defends those who cannot defend themselves is a hero.

Not saying slavery is right. The poll simply asked: Hero or Traitor.

No one said you were but you added your two cents and defended the people he killed. Expect the backlash. Those men deserved to die.

No one said you were but you added your two cents and defended the people he killed. Expect the backlash. Those men deserved to die.
Who are you to decide who gets to live, and who gets to die?

Not saying slavery is right. The poll simply asked: Hero or Traitor. Besides, since when do you get to decide how much one persons life is worth? How many killings are nesscessary? If we killed some innocent person for every time someone else was wronged (yes, thats right, John Brown WASNT A SLAVE, and thus had no reason to kill in order to escape from his owner etc), we would have a whole lot of dead people and nothing getting done

One again you said "innocent" person. They were not innocent. John Brown was even more a hero for standing up when he himself was not a slave. He could have lived a normal life but instead he died to save others.

Now tell me do you think Nat Turner was justified? He is another truly great American hero.

Anyone who defends those who cannot defend themselves is a hero.
He was not defending anyone. He was killing random people who opposed his ideology. That would be like if some guy shot my sister, and so I went and killed his cousin who lived in another country.

Remember the whole Bleeding Kansas was caused by the fact that Popular Sovereinty was tried with the Kansas-Nebraska Acts. People came from outside to vote. The people John Brown killed were there for no purpose other than to extend slavery.

He was not defending anyone. He was killing random people who opposed his ideology. That would be like if some guy shot my sister, and so I went and killed his cousin who lived in another country.
Read up oh the Harpers Ferry raid. The raid was done so he could get weapons to arm the slaves.

One again you said "innocent" person. They were not innocent. John Brown was even more a hero for standing up when he himself was not a slave. He could have lived a normal life but instead he died to save others.

Now tell me do you think Nat Turner was justified? He is another truly great American hero.
Since Nat Turner was enslaved at one time, I can see more justification for his actions, but I still think they were overly violent. Look at someone like Harriet Tubman. Se helped the slaves too, but did you see her kill anybody?
How about Frederick Douglass? Did he murder people in cold blood?

Who are you to decide who gets to live, and who gets to die?

I don't get to decide. Slavery passes judgement by itself. One of the few crimes that does. When you enslave an entire race of people and rape and murder them at will under horrible conditions you have signed your own death warrent. It takes a strong person to step in and fullfill it. This is not some crime behind closed doors everyone knew what was going on. Do you think the soldiers executing Jews at random in the death camps weren't worthy of death themselves? Crimes like this beg punishment it is not decided by someone else.

Read up oh the Harpers Ferry raid. The raid was done so he could get weapons to arm the slaves.
I was talking about his murders in Kansas.

from Wikipedia:
The baggage master, Hayward Shepherd, became the first casualty of John Brown's war against slavery. Ironically, Shepherd was a free black man.

Delicious, delicious irony

Remember the whole Bleeding Kansas was caused by the fact that Popular Sovereinty was tried with the Kansas-Nebraska Acts. People came from outside to vote. The people John Brown killed were there for no purpose other than to extend slavery.
Or they could have simply been in the wrong place at the wrong time, trying to make a living. John Brown was too busy cutting them into little pieces to care.

Slavery passes judgement by itself.
That's your opinion.

Since Nat Turner was enslaved at one time, I can see more justification for his actions, but I still think they were overly violent. Look at someone like Harriet Tubman. Se helped the slaves too, but did you see her kill anybody?
How about Frederick Douglass? Did he murder people in cold blood?

They found the best way they could to serve the abolitionist cause. If either knew they could end slavery violently I don't think they would have hesitated. They simply could not.

You do realize that the main argument for slavery was that they never revolted and thus they wanted to be slaves. Nat Turner was greatly important because he disproved this. It really surprised a lot of people who didn't actually work with slaves to find out that they actually weren't happy. These people were considered dumb work horses out of ignorance by many. It was a shock to see anythign different.

He was not defending anyone. He was killing random people who opposed his ideology. That would be like if some guy shot my sister, and so I went and killed his cousin who lived in another country.

No, its not like that at all. The people who opposed his ideology were raping and killing thousands of black people with no remorse. They treated the livestock better than they treated the slaves. He knew that it wasnt right and he stood up for his beliefs and for the slaves. So he killed some white men? Perhaps to instill fear in them and get their attention. Did you think he would have made an impact had he simply hung posters all over the land saying "Hey its not nice to kill and rape these people." ?

His actions may have inspired some of the slaves and given them a bit of hope that if this one white man believed so passionately that they should be free, then maybe there were more who believed that. I havent seen you mention anything about how wrong it is for these "innocent men" to break legs, bust skulls, kill babies, rape women for years and years. There are some things so unspeakable, so ugly, so obviously wrong, that it seems crazy to even have to defend JB for his actions. For every man who died at the hand of John Brown, 100 slaves died at the hands of those he killed. Maybe more.

They found the best way they could to serve the abolitionist cause. If either knew they could end slavery violently I don't think they would have hesitated. They simply could not.

You do realize that the main argument for slavery was that they never revolted and thus they wanted to be slaves. Nat Turner was greatly important because he disproved this. It really surprised a lot of people who didn't actually work with slaves to find out that they actually weren't happy. These people were considered dumb work horses out of ignorance by many. It was a shock to see anythign different.
Like I say, I'm willing to make provisions for Nat Turner, in that he was actually a slave. If John Brown wanted to kill some rednecks, he should have joined the Army.

No, its not like that at all. The people who opposed his ideology were raping and killing thousands of black people with no remorse. They treated the livestock better than they treated the slaves. He knew that it wasnt right and he stood up for his beliefs and for the slaves. So he killed some white men? Perhaps to instill fear in them and get their attention. Did you think he would have made an impact had he simply hung posters all over the land saying "Hey its not nice to kill and rape these people." ?

His actions may have inspired some of the slaves and given them a bit of hope that if this one white man believed so passionately that they should be free, then maybe there were more who believed that. I havent seen you mention anything about how wrong it is for these "innocent men" to break legs, bust skulls, kill babies, rape women for years and years. There are some things so unspeakable, so ugly, so obviously wrong, that it seems crazy to even have to defend JB for his actions. For every man who died at the hand of John Brown, 100 slaves died at the hands of those he killed. Maybe more.
You don't know who those 5 people were. They could have been people in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I was talking about his murders in Kansas.

from Wikipedia:
The baggage master, Hayward Shepherd, became the first casualty of John Brown's war against slavery. Ironically, Shepherd was a free black man.

Delicious, delicious irony


I'm sure that was the only innocent bystander to ever be killed in history.:rolleyes:

I'm sure that was the only innocent bystander to ever be killed in history.:rolleyes:
Oh c'mon. You have to enjoy the irony in that. In fact, from what I read, John Brown killed 10 people in his time, so 1/10 of John Brown's victims were black.

Like I say, I'm willing to make provisions for Nat Turner, in that he was actually a slave. If John Brown wanted to kill some rednecks, he should have joined the Army.

Ah, so if the government says "ok heres a gun, now go kill some rednecks" , its ok?




History is written by those who have hanged heroes.

Keep that in mind when you read how awful John Brown was and how those poor innocent slave owners were such victims.

Ah, so if the government says "ok heres a gun, now go kill some rednecks" , its ok?




History is written by those who have hanged heroes.

Keep that in mind when you read how awful John Brown was and how those poor innocent slave owners were such victims.
War is war, murder is murder.

War is war, murder is murder.


I rest my case.

History is written by those who have hanged heroes.

Are you now a philosopher as well as a bleeding heart? Give me a break.

I rest my case.
No but really.The poll asks:Hero or traitor. If he was a good little boy, and fought for the military, he wouldn't be a traitor. Since he apparently could'nt wait to kill people and commit a federal crime, he's a traitor.

Are you now a philosopher as well as a bleeding heart? Give me a break.

Bleeding heart? Peechland thinks John Brown is a hero right? I don't understand that comment at all. You are the bleeding heart. You wouldn't stand up for the rights of enslaved humans even if it meant murder because you don't want blood on your hands? Actually that is just cowardice.

Are you now a philosopher as well as a bleeding heart? Give me a break.


I am someone who believes that slavery was one of the most barbaric episodes to have ever taken place. This debate isnt about who can pull the most facts from Wiki about what a loon John Brown was. It's about how we interpret Brown's actions and beliefs. How we feel about it. Given the details and descriptions of how the slaves were treated vs this particular uprising, I'd say his actions were definitely the lesser of two evils.

No but really.The poll asks:Hero or traitor. If he was a good little boy, and fought for the military, he wouldn't be a traitor. Since he apparently could'nt wait to kill people and commit a federal crime, he's a traitor.

Actually he was upholding our own declared ideals. That is the opitomy of American patriotism. It was the slave owners who were traitors. Despite popular belief the civil war was not about slavery by the way. So there would be no point for him to fight in it.

No but really.The poll asks:Hero or traitor. If he was a good little boy, and fought for the military, he wouldn't be a traitor. Since he apparently could'nt wait to kill people and commit a federal crime, he's a traitor.

So I guess if someone came into your house in the middle of the night and dragged your wife/mother/etc out of the house by her hair, raped her on the lawn and then slit her throat, you wouldnt "Rise Up" for fear of being a traitor? The law wasnt exactly on their side now was it? If this happened today, we could call 911 and the police would come and save us. The person who dragged your wife/mother out of the house and raped and killed her would most assuredly be imprisoned for life.Or get the death penalty. Back then, what was a slave to do? Alert the authorities? No because no crime had been been comitted in their eyes. They had ZERO resources to protect them.

Despite popular belief the civil war was not about slavery by the way.

no, it really was. or at least that what the southern states said when they left, and it had been the source of tension since the revolution (and before, really).

John Brown has always been a personal hero of mine. I went to Oberlin College which has a memorial to four local men who died with him at Harper's Ferry. I've also been studying the local Underground Railroad history of my area, which includes people who were personal freinds of Brown. I believe he was a religious zealot, but I also believe that the abolishionist movement was one of the last progressive acts of mainline protestantism in America. He wasn't a madman, he fought for a just cause and a great portion of the northern abolishionist movement supported his actions and a fair number were unindited co-conspirators in its planning.

These men and women were not traitors, they were patriots who believed that America had gone astray from its founding vision and the only course available to people of conscience was resistance, be it helping fugatives escape to Canada or in the most extreme case taking up arms to free those held in abject bondage by those who had lost their moral bearings in America's pecular institution and the culture of oppression it maintained.

bump

He was a terrorist. His motives were pure, his methods were not.

no, it really was. or at least that what the southern states said when they left, and it had been the source of tension since the revolution (and before, really).

No, it wasn't about slavery per se, it was about two distinct and differing interpretations of the world, one held by a group of slave-owning states and another held by a group of free states. The former group believed that "freedom and liberty" meant doing what the hell they wanted in their own back yard, the latter group believed there were certain rules that should apply to the whole neighbourhood. That slavery was both the root cause of this differing world view, and the final breaking point of compromise around it doesn't mean that slavery was the whole issue.

I have sympathy with the Confederacy on a purely constitutional level, on the basis that no-one should be suborned into being a member of something that they are patently at odds with. It would be like my grandfather signing me up for a church, and the rules saying i couldn't leave said church when i hit the age to make a mature decision around whether i believed or not.

That said, i am repulsed by their immorality and lack of basic human decency on the issue that forced them to evaluate the constitutional level. If that makes any sense.

bump


my fingers still hurt from last nights episode

That slavery was both the root cause of this differing world view, and the final breaking point of compromise around it doesn't mean that slavery was the whole issue.

it's more than that - every other issue essentially reduces to slavery too

I have sympathy with the Confederacy on a purely constitutional level, on the basis that no-one should be suborned into being a member of something that they are patently at odds with.

me too, actually. which is part of why i hold john brown in high regard. he had the right idea.

me too, actually. which is part of why i hold john brown in high regard. he had the right idea.

No sensible person would deny that his intentions were just. His execution of his ideas, however, were barbarous.

No sensible person would deny that his intentions were just. His execution of his ideas, however, were barbarous.


No more barbaric that the slave owners.

His execution of his ideas, however, were...

precisely what needed to be done, only on a wider scale than he accomplished.

it's more than that - every other issue essentially reduces to slavery too

I don't think so...i think it's a little reductionist. It's like saying the cause of the middle east rioters, as many posters have claimed, is the religion of Islam. When you come down to it, yes, on a very basic, fundamental level, it is the religion of Islam, in that, Islam says you shouldn't show pictorial representations of the prophet Muhammad (and, indeed, you should definitely not show scurrilous and defamatory ones), boom, there you go, reductionist cause, Islam (or indeed, cartoonists, if you want to go down the other route). But there's layers above that that make the fundamental issue far more...complex. There's the west's treatment of the arab world, it's collusion with dictators and regional hard-men who play along with the ignorance of the masses to keep their power, it's provocation of the region and it's exploitation of the region. Then there's the nature of the societies the rioters inhabit - and how many of them are failed, and why they have failed. Then there's the lack of reformation within Islam, the failure of critical voices to stand up and be counted. There's the (rightful) feeling of being victimised (and the never stopping to question whether or not there are valid reasons for the "victimisation" because you don't do that when you feel a system of government, a political party, a grouping is against you and yours) and then there's the bunker mentality that develops from it. There's the feeling that no-one should be able to dictate or interfere with your way of life, your beliefs...

Stir that all up. Then you get a nice messy pottage. The solution will never be simply "bomb them till they respect us". And much of what was written above about the middle east could, with a few changed words be written about the Southern States or - and this is the crucial point - *was believed to be true by the Southern States*. And, really, blowing and shooting the shit (as opposed to bombing) out of the South didn't solve the problems. That took a great deal of time and moral courage from people both within and without the area.

me too, actually. which is part of why i hold john brown in high regard. he had the right idea.

Well, yeah. Thats the other thing. What people don't stop and think when they do have sympathy for the South's aims, if not what gave them their aims is that for every group that feels - generally, collectively - it can be no longer part of something because of a profound disagreement about the way life should be lived, that group itself may have dissidents. And the dissidents may have dissidents.

People's Front of Judea anyone?

I respect John Brown because he was a man molded in 19th century morality (which in many ways was one of the sickest and most morally repugnant of the past 500 years, mixing indifference to others suffering, plain old evil and mealy mouthed hypocrisy - Hitler and Stalin were pretty much products of the same century) who broke that mold and showed timeless moral courage. That he was a bit of a loon and rather blood thirsty is irrelevant compared to what he stood up against.

No more barbaric that the slave owners.

True enough, but violence wasn't necessary to achieve his goals. Harriet Tubman freed plenty of slaves without killing anyone.

True enough, but violence wasn't necessary to achieve his goals. Harriet Tubman freed plenty of slaves without killing anyone.


I think if ever there were a case for two wrongs make a right, slavery would be it.

The white murderous rapists had it coming.

I am someone who believes that slavery was one of the most barbaric episodes to have ever taken place. This debate isnt about who can pull the most facts from Wiki about what a loon John Brown was. It's about how we interpret Brown's actions and beliefs. How we feel about it. Given the details and descriptions of how the slaves were treated vs this particular uprising, I'd say his actions were definitely the lesser of two evils.
He betrayed his country. True, some people in the country were doing wrong, maybe even many, but just because some are, doesn't mean the rest shoud suffer. Had John Brown's rebellion succeeded, he would have had no qualms with taking the innocent along with the guilty. He may have had good intentions, but he carried them out in a deranged and overzelaous manner.

So I guess if someone came into your house in the middle of the night and dragged your wife/mother/etc out of the house by her hair, raped her on the lawn and then slit her throat, you wouldnt "Rise Up" for fear of being a traitor? The law wasnt exactly on their side now was it? If this happened today, we could call 911 and the police would come and save us. The person who dragged your wife/mother out of the house and raped and killed her would most assuredly be imprisoned for life.Or get the death penalty. Back then, what was a slave to do? Alert the authorities? No because no crime had been been comitted in their eyes. They had ZERO resources to protect them.
John Brown was not a slave. He should have been working to change the staus quo by working for change in the Constitution, not killing people in a revolution that was destined to fail.

The white murderous rapists had it coming.
That's racist and a generalization.

precisely what needed to be done, only on a wider scale than he accomplished.
Murdering people and raiding federal weapons storehouses? At least war is honorable.

No more barbaric that the slave owners.
There were some slave owners who treated their slaves well.

John Brown was not a slave. He should have been working to change the staus quo by working for change in the Constitution, not killing people in a revolution that was destined to fail.

Those pompous old bastards were in no hurry to help the slaves.

Just because he wasnt a slave doesnt mean he couldnt join together with them and give them some hope, some confidence, some proof that not all white people were cruel sons-of-bitches.

And you didnt answer any of my questions in that previous post you replied to. How youd feel/what youd do or want to do/who were they supposed to call for help when someone was raping their children/wives? Those are tough questions....its easier to just label him the savage.

Actually he was upholding our own declared ideals. That is the opitomy of American patriotism. It was the slave owners who were traitors. Despite popular belief the civil war was not about slavery by the way. So there would be no point for him to fight in it.
Upholding our ideals through terrorism. The ends do not justify the means.

That's racist and a generalization.


Dont talk to me about racism when I'm defending slaves:rolleyes:


There were some slave owners who treated their slaves well.

that sentence should be used very loosely

Those pompous old bastards were in no hurry to help the slaves.

Just because he wasnt a slave doesnt mean he couldnt join together with them and give them some hope, some confidence, some proof that not all white people were cruel sons-of-bitches.

Then he could have went down to the South on the Underground Railroad and led slaves to freedom. He was blinded by hate.

Dont talk to me about racism when I'm defending slaves:rolleyes:
You're lying to yourself. You're defending a radical white terrorist.

Then he could have went down to the South on the Underground Railroad and led slaves to freedom. He was blinded by hate.


And rightly so! Does it not enrage you that the slaves were treated so horribly???


Have you even bothered to put yourself, your family in their place?

You're lying to yourself. You're defeding a radical white terrorist.


And youre defending hundreds of radical white terrorists.

Those pompous old bastards were in no hurry to help the slaves.

How about Sumner? How about Lincoln? It was a minority of Southerners who wanted to retain slavery.

And rightly so! Does it not enrage you that the slaves were treated so horribly???


Have you even bothered to put yourself, your family in their place?
If I act against them hatefully, I am no better than they are.

And youre defending hundreds of radical white terrorists.
Again, a sweeping generalization.

How about Sumner? How about Lincoln? It was a minority of Southerners who wanted to retain slavery.

My God, Lincoln didnt even take office until 1861. By then maybe not as many wanted to retain slavery. What about allll the time before then?

If I act against them hatefully, I am no better than they are.

They werent concerned with being better than them. They just wanted to survive.

Again, a sweeping generalization.

Why is it when you say the very same sentence to me, youre not generalizing?

I am tired of repeating myself. You believe how you want and I will believe how I want. Incidentally, one more thing the slaves werent permitted to do.

My God, Lincoln didnt even take office until 1861. By then maybe not as many wanted to retain slavery. What about allll the time before then?
The raid on Harpers Ferry was not until October of 1859. Lincoln was elected President the next year, and took office at the start of the next. Could he not have waited for a year?

They werent concerned with being better than them. They just wanted to survive.

I love it how you keep saying they, like John Brown was one of them. John Brown wasn;t concerned with survival. He was concerned with excessive violence.

The raid on Harpers Ferry was not until October of 1859. Lincoln was elected President the next year, and took office at the start of the next. Could he not have waited for a year?

Umm.....slavery had been going on a lot longer than 1859-1861. And as for Brown, he began his works for the blacks in the 1840's.

The raid on Harpers Ferry was not until October of 1859. Lincoln was elected President the next year, and took office at the start of the next. Could he not have waited for a year?

Oh and that statement sounds like youre saying that Brown knew that Lincoln was going to be elected 2 years before he even took office. :confused:

I love it how you keep saying they, like John Brown was one of them. John Brown wasn;t concerned with survival. He was concerned with excessive violence.

Because Brown didnt single handedly kill and rebel.The slaves joined in. Are you saying that if you took John Brown out of the equation, that it would have been or would not have been just for the slaves to rebel and retaliate against their cruel abusive owners? Just curious.

Umm.....slavery had been going on a lot longer than 1859-1861. And as for Brown, he began his works for the blacks in the 1840's.
He didn't start up the violence until towards the end though, as far as I know.

While I feel that his heart may have been in the right place, I do think he went about it the wrong way. I remember reading somewhere (although I can't remember exactly) and have heard from various sources that he wanted to free the slaves and send them back to Africa if they wanted. I could also be thinking of a differant freedom fighter and talking out of my behind. That's just me.

Oh and that statement sounds like youre saying that Brown knew that Lincoln was going to be elected 2 years before he even took office. :confused:
He knew the election was coming up. He should've waited to determine his actions based on the outcome.

Because Brown didnt single handedly kill and rebel.The slaves joined in. Are you saying that if you took John Brown out of the equation, that it would have been or would not have been just for the slaves to rebel and retaliate against their cruel abusive owners? Just curious.
It would have been, BUT their main focus should still be escaping from slavery, and not taking out their anger.

Murdering people and raiding federal weapons storehouses? At least war is honorable.

so is killing those who would expand slavery and arming the oppressed. actually, my way is much more honorable than war.

so is killing those who would expand slavery and arming the oppressed. actually, my way is much more honorable than war.
Terrorism? Not in my book.

John Brown was not a slave. He should have been working to change the staus quo by working for change in the Constitution, not killing people in a revolution that was destined to fail.

william lloyd garrison again

"Tell a man whose house is on fire, to give a moderate alarm; tell him to moderately rescue his wife from the hand of the ravisher; tell the mother to gradually extricate her babe from the fire into which it has fallen; -- but urge me not to use moderation in a cause like the present. I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD."

He didn't start up the violence until towards the end though, as far as I know.

John Brown was very much involved in the fighting in Kansas in the 1850's. He and his sons fought against the pro-slavery Kansans and their allies from Missouri.

He directed the Pottowatamie Massacre in 1856 where his followers hacked a bunch of people to death with broadswords in their sleep.

He also participated in the defense of Prairie City, Kansas against a force of Missourrians twice the size of his force.

Also, although Osawatomie was destroyed Brown's heavily outnumbered forces inflicted heavy casualties on a 300 strong force of Missourrians as marched on the town.

i just want to point out that, contrary to the poll, brown did not "help free the slaves". he tried to free the slaves, and he failed to free the slaves.

Traitor.

Then he could have went down to the South on the Underground Railroad and led slaves to freedom.

which he did. quite effectively.

but it was not fast enough - every day that passed left millions in bondage and oppression, with perhaps 6 helped to freedom. the only just course of action was the immediate freeing of every slave, the total expropriation of all the wealth that their labor had created, and the utter destruction of the political, social, and legal system that had abused them.

It would have been, BUT their main focus should still be escaping from slavery, and not taking out their anger.

Yeah well easy for us to sit here and say what they should have been doing. We werent being whipped with leather straps, we werent watching our young children be raped right before our eyes, we werent experiencing the degradation that they were. Although your version sounds noble and the "right thing to do", mine sounds a bit more realistic and valid given the unspeakable circumstances.

i just want to point out that, contrary to the poll, brown did not "help free the slaves". he tried to free the slaves, and he failed to free the slaves.

Traitor.

If you are stranded on the side of the road and I stop and try to fix your flat tire, yet I dont succeed, does that mean I wasnt providing help?

Terrorism? Not in my book.

if terrorism means anything, then brown didn't engage in it.

John Brown was very much involved in the fighting in Kansas in the 1850's. He and his sons fought against the pro-slavery Kansans and their allies from Missouri.

He directed the Pottowatamie Massacre in 1856 where his followers hacked a bunch of people to death with broadswords in their sleep.

He also participated in the defense of Prairie City, Kansas against a force of Missourrians twice the size of his force.

Also, although Osawatomie was destroyed Brown's heavily outnumbered forces inflicted heavy casualties on a 300 strong force of Missourrians as marched on the town.
That was still the last five or so years before Lincoln's election.

Yeah well easy for us to sit here and say what they should have been doing. We werent being whipped with leather straps, we werent watching our young children be raped right before our eyes, we werent experiencing the degradation that they were. Although your version sounds noble and the "right thing to do", mine sounds a bit more realistic and valid given the unspeakable circumstances.

Look, if the slaves try to escape, and a slave owner tries to stop them, they have every right to do whatever is nesscessary to ensure their escape. However, the slaves should not go out of their way to do harm to slave owners.

william lloyd garrison again

"Tell a man whose house is on fire, to give a moderate alarm; tell him to moderately rescue his wife from the hand of the ravisher; tell the mother to gradually extricate her babe from the fire into which it has fallen; -- but urge me not to use moderation in a cause like the present. I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD."
I love it how it's always the white people up in the North calling for action.

which he did. quite effectively.

but it was not fast enough - every day that passed left millions in bondage and oppression, with perhaps 6 helped to freedom. the only just course of action was the immediate freeing of every slave, the total expropriation of all the wealth that their labor had created, and the utter destruction of the political, social, and legal system that had abused them.
By the US government in a due process, so as not to create an economic collapse, and punish the guilty while harming the innocent as little as possible.

if terrorism means anything, then brown didn't engage in it.
Websters:
terrorism- the systematic use of terror* as a means of coercion
terror: violence commited by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands <insurrection and revolutionary.

If this isn't what John Brown did, I don't know what is.

Websters:
terrorism- the systematic use of terror* as a means of coercion
terror: violence commited by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands <insurrection and revolutionary.

If this isn't what John Brown did, I don't know what is.

Holy hell.....you post the very definition of what the slave owners did to the slaves and then accuse Brown of it!!! You sir are a hypocrite.

Websters:
terrorism- the systematic use of terror* as a means of coercion
terror: violence commited by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands <insurrection and revolutionary.

If this isn't what John Brown did, I don't know what is.

You know, i was kinda enjoying reading this thread, but we've had about three pages of snappy one liners which kinda prove that yourself or the people you are arguing against are capable much of shifting your position.

And i thought i could argue the hind legs off a donkey ;)

Holy hell.....you post the very definition of what the slave owners did to the slaves and then accuse Brown of it!!! You sir are a hypocrite.
Look, the whole Harper's Ferry incident fits the bill of terrorism exactly. I again, am not trying to defend the position that the slave owners were not gross individuals for the most part, nor that they did things to slaves that would make an SS officer cringe, for that would be fallacious and futile. What I am trying to say is that by resorting to the methods of the slave owners, John Brown lowered himself to their level. That is what prevents him from being a hero.

Look, the whole Harper's Ferry incident fits the bill of terrorism exactly. I again, am not trying to defend the position that the slave owners were not gross individuals for the most part, nor that they did things to slaves that would make an SS officer cringe, for that would be fallacious and futile. What I am trying to say is that by resorting to the methods of the slave owners, John Brown lowered himself to their level. That is what prevents him from being a hero.

How exactly does one resist injustice and real, honest to goodness immorality, when you have a state that is desperately complicit in that injustice and you have neither the numbers nor the tradition of respect for human rights nor the mass media (because the 1800s was a very bloody century, because sitting down in the middle of the road a la Martin Luther King would have resulted in a lynching that would barely be reported outside of Alabama) that would be necessary for a non violent campaign against slavery?

How exactly does one resist injustice and real, honest to goodness immorality, when you have a state that is desperately complicit in that injustice and you have neither the numbers nor the tradition of respect for human rights nor the mass media (because the 1800s was a very bloody century, because sitting down in the middle of the road a la Martin Luther King would have resulted in a lynching that would barely be reported outside of Alabama) that would be necessary for a non violent campaign against slavery?
via the governent(diplomacy/lobbying) or army or Underground Railroad if you please, assuming you are a white or free black living in the North. If you are a slave, get the hell out of there any way you can.

via the governent(diplomacy/lobbying) or army or Underground Railroad if you please, assuming you are a white or free black living in the North. If you are a slave, get the hell out of there any way you can.

By your logic you would still happily be a subject of Queen Elizabeth II then?

via the governent(diplomacy/lobbying) or army or Underground Railroad if you please, assuming you are a white or free black living in the North. If you are a slave, get the hell out of there any way you can.

Including joining up with a white man, stealing some guns and killing a few masters.....You said it yourself this time. Gotcha.

By your logic you would still happily be a subject of Queen Elizabeth II then?
Wrong. First off, the US declared itself to be a nation, and it fought in a war against the British using, for the most part, what would today be considered conventional tactics. Second, we did not initiate military action. The British made the first move when they went for Lexington.

Including joining up with a white man, stealing some guns and killing a few masters.....You said it yourself this time. Gotcha.
The slaves should not try to be violent. They should not seek it out by murdering slave owners who weren't directly obstructing them from freedom, and by this I mean standing in front of them holding a gun.

The slaves should not try to be violent. They should not seek it out by murdering slave owners who weren't directly obstructing them from freedom, and by this I mean standing in front of them holding a gun.

I'm done with you. It's like youre playing tennis with yourself and its making me dizzy. I respect your right to your own opinion, even if I disagree....strongly disagree. But you and I must agree to disagree at this point.

Wrong. First off, the US declared itself to be a nation, and it fought in a war against the British using, for the most part, what would today be considered conventional tactics. Second, we did not initiate military action. The British made the first move when they went for Lexington.

The American people committed treason against their (by the standards and laws of the time) legitimate ruler. That enough of them committed treason that this treason proved successful does not remove this fact. It's the same treason the Confederacy committed (and, quite frankly, both committed this treason over rather less of a point of principle than poor ol John Brown).

Is what stops it being treason numbers?

Or is it the old adage:-
"treason never does succeed
for this very reason
if it fails, it fails
and if it succeeds, none can call it treason"

;)

The American people committed treason against their (by the standards and laws of the time) legitimate ruler. That enough of them committed treason that this treason proved successful does not remove this fact. It's the same treason the Confederacy committed (and, quite frankly, both committed this treason over rather less of a point of principle than poor ol John Brown).
;)
I don't consider the Confederacy to have commited treason either. They seceeded, lost, and were annexed back into the US.

I don't consider the Confederacy to have commited treason either. They seceeded, lost, and were annexed back into the US.

Numbers or pettifogging legal distinctions don't hide the fact - either it is morally right to take up arms against things that are unjust or evil, or it is wrong. Which?

Websters:
terrorism- the systematic use of terror* as a means of coercion
terror: violence commited by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands <insurrection and revolutionary.

If this isn't what John Brown did, I don't know what is.

try the words 'guerrilla warfare' or 'revolution' or plain old 'liberation' on for size. john brown did not take a bunch of hostages and use the threat of violence against them to coerce third parties to do anything.

if what he did was terrorism, then so was the american revolution, or the european resistance to the fascists, or every war ever. and if that is the case, then terrorism is a neutral activity and often a positive force in the world. as i said, if terrorism means anything, it doesn't mean that.

I love it how it's always the white people up in the North calling for action.

perhaps because most of the black people were enslaved and therefore not given access to publishers?

try the words 'guerrilla warfare' or 'revolution' or plain old 'liberation' on for size. john brown did not take a bunch of hostages and use the threat of violence against them to coerce third parties to do anything.

if what he did was terrorism, then so was the american revolution, or the european resistance to the fascists, or every war ever. and if that is the case, then terrorism is a neutral activity and often a positive force in the world. as i said, if terrorism means anything, it doesn't mean that.

Although - and lets make this plain, because many if not most Americans seem to be blinded to the facts with regard to the American Revolution - the "cause" John Brown took up arms for was over 1000% more worthy and justifiable than the cause of the American Revolutionaries.

(and i say this as a venerator of Thomas Paine)

Was John Brown a traitor? If you want to go into legalese, then technically, yes. Of course, if you really want to be all up to your neck in such legal-babble, then so was everybody who fought in the Revolution-rebelling against the British Crown and all(even if the aforementioned Crown was later found mentally ill and made to retire). His methods were a bit much, I admit(he could have just shot them instead of chopping them up, which also would've been more strategic, too), but he was doing the right thing, even if he was unsuccessful in getting a slave uprising. As for being a "terrorist".... hmm. Well, according to the 3 entries I found at dictionary.com, terrorism involves coercion. Or, to put it into different terms, it's basically violence as a form of blackmail. So, with that in mind, was Mr. Brown a terrorist? In my opinion, no. It appears to me that he wasn't about to kill a bunch of guys and then hide in a hole like a coward and laugh as those who belonged to the same political ideologies tried to figure out a proper course of action beyond forming a hanging posse(like, for example, Hezbollah or Al Qaeda)all the while issuing threats from his hiding place, but was planning to have an actual revolution, with himself in the lead-at least, until he got captured. In fact, I think a more proper term for him would be a guerrilla fighter. If you think that is a bad thing, just remember that, not only did both the North and the South use guerrilla fighting to varying degrees(depending on the side and the date), but that those fighting in the Revolution against the British did, too. Or, in other words, guerrilla fighting can be a good thing, on occasion. Then, there's also the saying," One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." I'm sure there's more than one person here(whether or not they'll admit it)that thinks of Al Qaeda and Hezbollah as merely misguided and misled revolutionaries. For all we know, history may prove them right.

And now, to address all this "war" and "honorable" crap. Tweedlesburg, you were the one who put those two words together, correct? Well, unless you happen to be a Klingon, war is NOT honorable. The ideals behind it may be(and that's completely up to those who write the history books), but what actually happens in it is certainly not. Heck, if Mr. Brown had bothered to wait for a war, he, more than likely, would have been doing the exact same thing, but this time under orders and with a lot more white guys, some of whom probably hadn't even seen a black person before being drafted, let alone been slaves. Not only would he have been under orders, but after killing those people at that raid, depending upon exactly when during the War this raid could have taken place, he may not have even have been allowed to arm any slaves liberated. Why? Because(and I can't remember exactly when)during at least a part of the war, blacks weren't allowed into the Union army as actual soldiers-they could cook, clean, etc., but fight? Nope. Oh, and before anyone here starts going on about the "rules of war" in regards to being issued orders to chop up enemy combatents-it's only AFTER you except their surrender that you have to treat them like human beings(or rather, that's how it was at the time), and the Union Army weren't always nice guys... Heck, depending whose orders he was taking, he may have even have had to do some injustices to the local black population, or just sit back and let others do them. This is because, while the majority of abolishinists were in the North, there were many more people in the North who were just fighting in the Civil War to reunite the Union and were just as racist, or were close to being as racist, as the Southerners(this can be proven by the lack of uproar and major protests in concerns to Plessy Vs. Ferguson, AKA "separate but equal", after the Civil War). If Brown had tried to arm black people under the command of one of these guys, he probably would've gotten the crap beat out of him. Or shot. Or relieved of duty and arrested for insubordination. So which is more "honorable"? Fighting against an injustice because you want to, or because you are ordered to?

All that being said, my great-great grandpa fought for the Union in the Civil War as an enlisted man, meaning he fought of his own free will. He also cut off all ties with his biological maternal(his dad remarried)grandfather for being a "Northern Democrat", and as being a Democrat in those days ment you supported slavery, I think it's safe to say that he(my g-g grandpa)at least didn't support that institution. What his personal views concerning African Americans were beyond that I can not say. Why the mention of my ancestor, someone may ask? This is my way of saying that, yes, I acknowledge that bad things(to put it mildly)happen in war, but no, I don't think every soldier was an evil, homicidal maniac out to get his jollies.
*Looks up at post and wonders if she didn't just open herself up for slaughter.*:eek:

Edit: Just saw that Soviets said some of this stuff for me, aswell as Panty. Go you 2, screw me for an overly long post.

Numbers or pettifogging legal distinctions don't hide the fact - either it is morally right to take up arms against things that are unjust or evil, or it is wrong. Which?
No. That's not it at all. I'm defending my opinion that John Brown was a traitor to the United States. What you're asking is a completely different debate. In any case, my answer is: not if it can be resolved peacefully.

try the words 'guerrilla warfare' or 'revolution' or plain old 'liberation' on for size. john brown did not take a bunch of hostages and use the threat of violence against them to coerce third parties to do anything.

if what he did was terrorism, then so was the american revolution, or the european resistance to the fascists, or every war ever. and if that is the case, then terrorism is a neutral activity and often a positive force in the world. as i said, if terrorism means anything, it doesn't mean that.
He mudered those people and captured that other army in order to try to scare the government into prohibiting slavery.

John Brown helped free the slaves like Osama bin Laden converted the United States to Islam.

He mudered those people and captured that other army in order to try to scare the government into prohibiting slavery.

no. in kansas it was to directly resist the expansion of slavery and the violence of the slavers. by ballot at first, but the slavers didn't play fair and went with ballot stuffing and intimidation rather than letting kansas become a free state. which led to abolitionist groups raising funds to arm the kansans against the attacks of the border ruffians and pals.

the immediate run-up to john brown's group attacking the slavers at pottawatamie creek was the slavers sacking lawrence.

Although - and lets make this plain, because many if not most Americans seem to be blinded to the facts with regard to the American Revolution - the "cause" John Brown took up arms for was over 1000% more worthy and justifiable than the cause of the American Revolutionaries.

(and i say this as a venerator of Thomas Paine)
The majority of the slave holders at that time were victims of society.They probably had no more like for slavery than the next man, but it was the only way of life they knew. Also at that time, many people were of the belief that whites were truly superior intellectually and otherwise to blacks. Although we know now this to be a bunch of crap, spoken lightly, the people of that time did not, and had no way to actually prove the veracity of those claims.

The fight that John Brown fought was obviously in the interest of the greater good, but I still think his methods were treasonous, which is why I gave the orginal response to the poll that I did.

Well what should ol' JB have done then, instead of running around murdering people and trying to incite rebellions?
Again, he could have been more active in trying to find diplomatic solutions, working on the Underground Railroad, or joining the military

Why is the military so much better?
The difference between what John Brown was doing, and what he would do in the military, is that if he did it for the military, it would'nt be treason. That is the debate behind the whole issue.

Well if you agree with him doing it with the military, why can't he do it on his own?
The military would be out to put a permanent stop to slavery, he would be fighting fairly against actual combatants and not civilians, however bad those civilians might be, it would be sanctioned by the government, and it would be done in a manner so as to benifit the country in the long-run, not just to free the slaves.

But what about all the suffering slaves? How would you feel?
I would feel horrible. The slaves had every right to escape, and to resist those who prevented that. If John Brown killed someone in the act of actually helping a slave escape, I would be fine with it. What John Brown did was murder 5 people in Kansas who for all we know, were in the wrong place at the wrong time, and take over an armory, killing a free black man in the process. I have to question his actions.

Why wasn't John Brown a hero?
John Brown had his head in the right place, but his tactics brought him down to the very level of the people he was fighting against. That disqualifies him from heroism in my eyes.

You're a #$#@!$# racist!
Absolutely not! Slavery was probably the greatest atrocity in the history of the United States, and we should all be glad it is no longer a part of society.

the immediate run-up to john brown's group attacking the slavers at pottawatamie creek was the slavers sacking lawrence.
violence begets violence. That's my whole issue

You don't know who those 5 people were. They could have been people in the wrong place at the wrong time.

historians know exactly who those people were.

The majority of the slave holders at that time were victims of society.They probably had no more like for slavery than the next man, but it was the only way of life they knew. Also at that time, many people were of the belief that whites were truly superior intellectually and otherwise to blacks. Although we know now this to be a bunch of crap, spoken lightly, the people of that time did not, and had no way to actually prove the veracity of those claims.

The fight that John Brown fought was obviously in the interest of the greater good, but I still think his methods were treasonous, which is why I gave the orginal response to the poll that I did.

Well what should ol' JB have done then, instead of running around murdering people and trying to incite rebellions?
Again, he could have been more active in trying to find diplomatic solutions, working on the Underground Railroad, or joining the military

Why is the military so much better?
The difference between what John Brown was doing, and what he would do in the military, is that if he did it for the military, it would'nt be treason. That is the debate behind the whole issue.

Well if you agree with him doing it with the military, why can't he do it on his own?
The military would be out to put a permanent stop to slavery, he would be fighting fairly against actual combatants and not civilians, however bad those civilians might be, it would be sanctioned by the government, and it would be done in a manner so as to benifit the country in the long-run, not just to free the slaves.

But what about all the suffering slaves? How would you feel?
I would feel horrible. The slaves had every right to escape, and to resist those who prevented that. If John Brown killed someone in the act of actually helping a slave escape, I would be fine with it. What John Brown did was murder 5 people in Kansas who for all we know, were in the wrong place at the wrong time, and take over an armory, killing a free black man in the process. I have to question his actions.

Why wasn't John Brown a hero?
John Brown had his head in the right place, but his tactics brought him down to the very level of the people he was fighting against. That disqualifies him from heroism in my eyes.

You're a #$#@!$# racist!
Absolutely not! Slavery was probably the greatest atrocity in the history of the United States, and we should all be glad it is no longer a part of society.

(1) I'm unsure how much i can see someone as a victim of society when they are sipping mint juleps on the verandah of their mansion whilst other human beings they OWN are slaving for them.
(2) Fair enough, granted.
(3) Some crimes cry out for more than - well meaning - peaceful solutions. Some stains on humanities soul need to be washed clean with the blood of those responsible. Whilst i am the least violent and/or warlike of men, there are certain places of conflict in history that, if i had had the choice, i would have been and where i would have fought and i would have been proud to fight, because not standing up against such evil lessens the human spirit - Spain 36, against the Nazis from 39...and yes, i'd have taken part in his raid.
(4) Murder is not murder when it is officially sanctioned by a government apparently. Even though, really, the legality of the war against the South, especially from a nation that seceeded from an Empire themselves, is dubious to say the least. So they were acting on dubious grounds legally, if not morally. Quite similar to Mr Brown, eh?
(5) If you are complicit in a society that is committing an atrocity and you do not stand up against that atrocity, but instead - at best - go silently along with it, and at worst encourage or participate in that atrocity you are more than "in the wrong place at the wrong time"
(6) No. Sometimes the only answer to evil is violence. Sometimes the only recourse for good, righteous and moral human beings is to step outside the law. His tactics were forced upon him by the northern politicians desperate to retain the status quo, the southern politicians desperate to retain their "special institution". No. Sometimes a man has to fight, to kill, and to die for what is right, in the face of all that the world around him - and maybe even all his better instincts.
(7) Never suggested you were. Not in the slightest.

Then he could have went down to the South on the Underground Railroad and led slaves to freedom. He was blinded by hate.

You don't get what revolution is about. The point of revolution (what John Brown was trying to start) is to fundamentally change the system. Freeing slaves on the Underground Railroad is equivalent to volunteering at a charity, raiding Harper's Ferry and killing those who would expand slavery (it should be noted, there was a series of tit-for-tat attacks in Kansas) is equivalent to direct action against injustice. Which one produces change? The latter.

John Brown's attempted revolution and campaign of violence were in retalliation for violence. Any oppression and poverty are forms of violence and rebellion against them is natural and nobel. The fact that John Brown was not a slave means that his acts were in solidarity with the slaves. Solidarity is one of the most effective and time honored traditions of revolutionary movements.

I hope all of you saying he was a murderer are die-hard pacifists, because he had just as much right to try to incite revolution amongst the slaves as the American Colonists or the French had to rebel against their masters.

(1) I'm unsure how much i can see someone as a victim of society when they are sipping mint juleps on the verandah of their mansion whilst other human beings they OWN are slaving for them.
(2) Fair enough, granted.
(3) Some crimes cry out for more than - well meaning - peaceful solutions. Some stains on humanities soul need to be washed clean with the blood of those responsible. Whilst i am the least violent and/or warlike of men, there are certain places of conflict in history that, if i had had the choice, i would have been and where i would have fought and i would have been proud to fight, because not standing up against such evil lessens the human spirit - Spain 36, against the Nazis from 39...and yes, i'd have taken part in his raid.
(4) Murder is not murder when it is officially sanctioned by a government apparently. Even though, really, the legality of the war against the South, especially from a nation that seceeded from an Empire themselves, is dubious to say the least. So they were acting on dubious grounds legally, if not morally. Quite similar to Mr Brown, eh?
(5) If you are complicit in a society that is committing an atrocity and you do not stand up against that atrocity, but instead - at best - go silently along with it, and at worst encourage or participate in that atrocity you are more than "in the wrong place at the wrong time"
(6) No. Sometimes the only answer to evil is violence. Sometimes the only recourse for good, righteous and moral human beings is to step outside the law. His tactics were forced upon him by the northern politicians desperate to retain the status quo, the southern politicians desperate to retain their "special institution". No. Sometimes a man has to fight, to kill, and to die for what is right, in the face of all that the world around him - and maybe even all his better instincts.
(7) Never suggested you were. Not in the slightest.
I can see that there are strong opinions about this issue. While I have to admit that you and some others have put forth some valid points, this is going to have to be an issue where we simply agree to disagree.

violence begets violence. That's my whole issue

but asking nicely never stops oppression - especially not when the oppressors are willing to engage in violence to maintain the status quo (or expand it, as was the case here)