Do you agree with John Brown?

[Christ was Socialist]

I know the question is ambiguous. But as the descendant of slaves I admire the man. I KNOW this will be a debate about the do the ends justify the means, but i must wait for a reply since i must admit i can't be objective so I will include a short bio from www.amiannoying.com

The Resume
(May 9, 1800-December 2, 1859)
Born in Torrington, Connecticut
Conductor on the Underground Railroad
Attempted to start a nation-wide slave rebellion at Harper's Ferry, Virginia (October 16-18, 1859)
Convicted of treason against the U.S. government
Executed by hanging (December 2, 1859)

Why he might be annoying
He became convinced that he was God's selected instrument of terror against all racists.
One night in Kansas territory, he and six followers heartlessly pulled several pro-slavery families out of their houses and proceeded to hack them to death with swords (May 23, 1856).
He and a militia of 21 men killed innocent people at an attempt to start a slave rebellion at Harper's Ferry.
His revolt was put down after a two day stand-off by marines under the command of Robert E. Lee.
Two of his own sons were killed in the insurrection at Harper's Ferry.
He was arrested after being seriously wounded in the skirmish at Harper's Ferry (October 18, 1859).
Despite his noble intentions, he was still a murderer.


Why he might not be annoying
He was passionately opposed to slavery.
He helped many slaves escape to freedom through the Underground Railroad.
He dreamed of a world where blacks and whites lived together in equality.
He scared the crap out of southern slave owners.
He was a source of hope and inspiration for many slaves.
He was the subject of a popular Union march song during the Civil War.

[DAGDA56]

1. Certainly one of the most "Uncomfortable" characters ...

...in US history. I have never been able to get any teacher or professor to sound anything but ambiguous about the man. Even the movies had the problem, having Raymond Massey play him. All this means is that I have yet to come up with a good answer for your very important question.

[tabasco]

2. Well, he was right about one thing.

War was inevitable. He knew there had to be a war to purge N. America of slavery. His plan to start it really wasn't that great.

[bigbillhaywood]

4. "I, John Brown, now believe that the sins of this guilty land will only be

purged with blood"-- last words, 1860.

[bigbillhaywood]

3. Fuck yeah! John Brown was awesome! If most Black Americans were

Catholic instead of Protestant, that guy and MLK would have been canonized saints a long time ago. John Brown kicks much ass! Harriet Tubman, too! She was supposed to go on the Harpers Ferry raid, but suffered one of her blackout spells at the time. Did anyone hear about how an artist was commisioned to do a mural of Tubman in Baltimore a few years back, with her holding a lantern and rifle, then the City told him not to include thee gun? He told them to fuck off.

[sweetheart]

12. hell yea! He was a wise and holy man.

No tolerance of slavery and martyring himself for that injustice
is profound and great of him. .. major respect.

[AgentLadyBug]

5. in those historical circumstances....

he might've been about as good as one could reasonably hope for....

it's still too bad tho, that well-intentioned folks can't figure out anything to do but kill those who are in the wrong....

[tom_paine]

6. Very torn in two about John Brown

But, yes, right at this moment, and undoubtedly owing to the Totalitarian Shadow that is falling over us, I am leaning now more than ever towards a positive view of him.

Let us not forget that John Brown was a zealot. Not a Freeper, of course, because at that time they were the Slaveholders and Slavery Supporters. But an unmoving zealot nonetheless. His motivation was True and he was correct about many things, but he was also a brutal, violent man who initiated a terrible event...Harper's Ferry.

I am very familiar with the story of Harper's Ferry as I'm sure you are, and I am not excusing the barbarism of the townspeople either.

But I admire his conviction, and the overall fact that his actions were trying to right a greater wrong, slavery, means a lot.

Undoubtedly, at this time I am leaning towards a more sympathetic view of John Brown. But talk to me next months and that may change.

I will always be conflicted about how I fell about John Brown.

[Amerpie]

7. Interesting fact

John Brown didn't go crazy until 30 years after he died. That is, historians twisted facts long after his death to portray him as a lunatic.

To me, he's a hero.

[No2W2004]

8. John Brown

No man is above the law in the United States of America. (unless poppy says otherwise)

John Brown butchered 5 men in Kansas and was allowed to go free for 4 years with no attempts to arrest him. He was not hiding and made a lot of appearances through out the Northeast where he claimed to be an instrument of god.

Then, at Harper's Ferry, he killed 4 more men.

Murder is murder, no matter how good the intentions.

John Brown was not a slave. A slave had every right (in my opinion) to rise up and defend themselves, but Brown killed to try and spark revolution.

Allowing John Brown to travel with impunity was one of the reasons the south was convinced the north was out to destroy slavery (which was still legal) without their consent.

If someone today goes and takes out all the neocons in govt., it might be celebrated, but the person still committed a crime and should face a trial by their peers for it. John Brown never had to answer for Kansas, until he was on trial for treason 4 years later.

(Don't take the above as any kind of endorsement of slavery. It was an evil practice and went on far to long for people claiming to be
"civilized". I'm looking at it as if I lived in the 1850s)

[On the Road]

9. Right Convictions, Wrong Tactics

I truly admire John Brown's hopeless struggle. And an armed struggle truly was hopeless.

I am a big fan of James Loewen's books Lies My Teacher Told Me and Lies Across America. I have learned a lot from him about the history of race and slavery in this country.

And yet in hindsight, I'm one of the minority that believe the South would have solved its slavery and race problems faster and more completely without the North's efforts to impose a solution. I actually believe the Southern states should have been allowed to secede.

Slavery would not have lasted in the South. And the descent into Jim Crow, segregation, KKK terrorism, lynchings, and white race riots lasted well into the 20th century, and involved the entire nation. I think these atrocities would have been shorter and milder because they would not have represented opposition to an imposed solution by the North. JMHO.

[Raenelle]

10. No. I agree with Gandhi--we should be willing to die, but not to kill,

for what we believe.

[DivinBreuvage]

11. Those of you who criticize him for "cold blooded murder" in Kansas

Need to read more about what the proslavery men had been doing there since before John Brown ever even got to Kansas. John Brown's violent eruption down Pottawotamie Creek did not just happen out of the blue, nor was John Brown the first to shed blood in Kansas. It's just that his murders were committed AGAINST the interests of rich white conservatives, and therefore were greeted with howls of outrage, so "Crazy Brown" has gone down to history as the fanatical terrorist who committed unprovoked atrocities against noble and chivalrous Christian gentlemen.

Compare a similar episode in 1858 when 11 unarmed Kansas freesoil men were killed or wounded along the Marais des Cygnes by proslavery Missourians. No effort was made by either the US government or the governors of Kansas or Missouri to apprehend the murderers although their identities were known. Seven months later John Brown and his lieutenant J.H. Kagi forcibly freed eleven slaves from a couple of Missouri farms and in the course of Kagi's raid the slaveowner was killed. Again, this one murder committed against the Slave Power provoked a wild uproar in the halls of power.

It has always been a sad truth that shedding blood for black folks isn't quite the same as shedding blood for white folks. The same voice that damns John Brown holds up George Washington as a noble hero (I believe that Washington was a noble hero, all things considered, but I do not believe his cause was more righteous than John Brown's; they are equivalent). Oftentimes the same voice that damns John Brown holds up Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, or Nathan Forrest (of Fort Pillow Massacre and KKK fame) as courageous Southern patriots. It is even acceptable to admire Rommel, Guderian, and von Manstein for their tactical genius, so long as one issues the obligatory lamentation that it was in the service of such an evil regime. But not John Brown.

[Bandit]

13. While true he had the best of intentions he was no where near as effective

as MLK. Their tactics were opposite and yet their goals were one and the same. I like the MLK approach myself.