Christians: What is your opinion of John Brown?

Capt. John Brown remains one of the most controversial figures in American history; the quintessential shit-stormer--whose raid on Harper's Ferry helped spark the Civil War--is still despised by reactionaries and feared by well-meaning liberals (mention the abolitionist's name, and the latter group will say something to the effect of: "Well, I understand why he did it, but.....).

And lest we forget...Brown was a devout Christian. Though some scholars label him "mad" or "insane," I believe Brown merely thought himself an instrument of God, drawing from Doddridge’s "Rise and Progress of Religion in the Soul."

Yes, he rejected Christ's call to nonviolence: he and his allies murdered five state-settlers in Kansas; killed a slaveowner in Missouri; and led the aforementioned raid on this nation's armory.

HOWEVER, few white man in America so vehemently heeded the Christian command to "remember them that are in bonds, as bound with them." Among other endeavors, Brown harbored runaway blacks (as did his father); escorted eleven slaves in Missouri to freedom (after killing their owner); and attempted to do through small-scale violence what Lincoln would eventually do after a full-scale war, which would claim the lives of 600,000 men.

What's more, many key figures in the Northern community fancied him the martyr: Emmerson was ecstatic, believing that his death would "make the gallows as holy as the cross"; Wendell Phillips fully endorsed his actions: "The lesson of the hour is insurrection"; even Garrison, the fierce pacifist, defended Brown: “Let no one who glories in the Revolutionary struggle of 1776 deny the rights of slaves to imitate the example of our fathers.”


What do you think of Brown?

believe that the ends justifies the means?

I can not condemn Brown any more than I can Bonhoeffer--the Christian dissenter who would stray from the non-violence ethos in his desire to conspire in the '44 attempt on Hitler's life--or the Jewish Resistance, for that matter, who fought a government that exterminated 6 million of their brethren.

I see little difference between American slavery and the Holocaust. Scratch that, I see none.

even Garrison, the fierce pacifist, defended Brown: “Let no one who glories in the Revolutionary struggle of 1776 deny the rights of slaves to imitate the example of our fathers.”

If you believe in armed revolution to secure rights for yourself, you have to believe in it for others too.

He warned about the coming Civil War because of slavery. Sure he was a firebrand, but one couldn't turn the other cheek or have a sit down protest in those days. After all, Jesus had to whip out those money changer in the Temple too. Maybe, and only just maybe, the Civil War could've been avoided is Harper's Ferry had been successful. Guess ole Nat Turner was still fresh in the minds of many.

His intentions were to do what he thought was right, but maybe his use of violence was a sign of his impatience with the authorities of his day.

Eventually what he was trying to do happened, but it did take over a century to occur.

Do the ends justify the means, not always, but sometimes they do.

Growing up in Kansas made me a bit leery of folks who carry the Bible in one hand and a gun in the other.

We can give John Brown, and the other fanatical abolitionists (abolitionists like anyone else had a range of comitment to the cause some moderate and realistic, some fanatical), credit for helping slaves and generally standing against slavery.

But he is not a person I would hold up as a hero. The "ends justifying the means" argument doesn't really apply in his case either. He wasn't doing something he believed was evil in order to cause a "good" result. He like any fundamentalists felt his idea of what was right was all that mattered and he believed he must always do right and his attack on the armory was "right" in his view. A simplistic dangerous view of the world.

As Lincoln described it, the Abolitionists were pointing in the correct direction - the end of slavery - but the path was not the one for a just and rational society to follow.

And that is because their path starts from a false premise. Or rather a premise that is not equally accepted by all, that slavery is wrong because god says so. Slavery is wrong because of the real world consequences. Stealing the labor of others, treating humans like property and all that goes along with that - poor health, no freedom, and on and on.

Brown led a mob and regardless of what you feel about the violence of the Civil war that was the considered action of a democratically elected government not a mob motivated by arrogance and religious beliefs.

"In any case that arises, as for instance, in the promulgation of abolitionism, one of two positions is necessarily true; that is, the thing is right within itself, and therefore deserves the protection of all law and all good citizens; or, it is wrong, and therefore proper to be prohibited by legal enactments; and in neither case, is the interposition of mod law, either necessary, justifiable, or excusable."

This is a quote from Lincoln's speech to the Young Men's Lyceum in Springfield. He was actually referring to the mob attacks on abolitionists like editor Elijah Lovejoy. But notice it is a condemnation of the mob attack it applies equally to an attack against abolitionists or slaveholders - or even an armory of the US government.

Yes the slaves had the right to rise up in arms they had no legal recourse but John Bown was not a slave. He was trying to impose his interpretation of god’s will on others, freeing the slaves was just a side affect for him.



on edit: just fixed a couple of typos.

...can be found in the fascinating book Lies My Teacher Told Me by James Loewen. Among other things I learned: Harriet Tubman had planned to join Brown on the Harper's Ferry raid. Only illness kept her away.

(And I hope you don't mind an atheist butting in...)

Apparently the idea of Brown being "insane" was created by...guess who!?...the media of the day.

No one who ever sat down and talked to him ever thought he was crazy, and that included some of his bitterest opponents. On the contrary, Brown was an educated man from a family of well-educated people and had traveled in Europe, which was pretty rare in those days.

Part of his reputation for murderous insanity came from the massacre he carried out in Pottawatomie, KS, where seven pro-slavery residents were hacked to death by broadswords.

(Another weird historical intersection: those broadswords were bought and given to Brown by the Abolitionist uncle of a fellow who would survive the Civil War and go on to write about it--Ambrose Bierce.)

I should've also disclosed that I'm athesit too but it seemed like already non-christians were chiming in so I went ahead.

I read "Lies my teacher told me" and loved it. I certainly didn't mean to imply I thought Brown was insane. Just not a hero in my eyes.

His, a white man, religous fever the mob that followed him probably endangered more slaves, in the form of reprisals of fearfilled slave owners, than helped.

He was a very courageous man, but he wasn't a realistic man in terms of being able to assess the possibilities of success for his cause. The key and most important point to remember is that his cause was the just cause, the abolition of slavery. His excecution sparked extremely different reactions in the North and the South and led directly to the Civil War, of course. Brown became a martyr for the abolitionist cause.

It is also interesting that he was captured by Lt. Col. Robert E. Lee, who had Jeb Stuart with him in the raid.

Brown's impact was historic and very symbolic, and became a rallying point for abolitionism. In a way, he was merely a piece of a much larger social argument over the extension of slavery to the new US territories, and over the future of slavery itself.

I've been both to Harper's Ferry, and saw the tiny building where he and his followers held out; if there was ever an indefensible position, this was it. I have also been to John Brown's farm outside of Lake Placid, New York. It sits on a hilltop, a mid-1800s farmhouse, and Brown and his followers are buried here, in this heavily forested area. Right next to the farm, in a piece of architectural surrealism, is the multi-story concrete tower of the Olympic ski jump. Very bizarre.

"Brown led a mob and regardless of what you feel about the violence of the Civil war that was the considered action of a democratically elected government not a mob motivated by arrogance and religious beliefs."

The genocidal Vietnam War was a "considered action of a democratically elected government," while Shay's Rebellion, Little Big Horn, and the legions of bloody labor strikes (including Ludlow) and socialist conflagarations were fomented by, and comprised of, the "arrogant" dissenters you seem so wary of. Is the implementation of violence unacceptable unless it is sanctioned by oligarchs and elitists?


"Yes the slaves had the right to rise up in arms they had no legal recourse but John Bown was not a slave."

That Brown was not a slave makes him even more of a hero--he displayed staggering empathy for those who weren't of his class or race. This is what makes Brown so dangerous to so many people--they can't believe that a white man would kill, and die, in defense of the wretched.


"He was trying to impose his interpretation of god’s will on others, freeing the slaves was just a side affect for him."

A half-truth. Brown's disgust with the institution of slavery stemmed from personal experience, and not just from theological constructs. After all, one of the great traumas of his childhood was witnessing a white man bludgeon a young black child over the head with an iron shovel, rendering said boy unconscious. As a man (and everyone says this), Brown treated black visitors as equals--conversing, debating-- at a time when even abolitionists were inclined to condescend.


"And that is because their path starts from a false premise. Or rather a premise that is not equally accepted by all, that slavery is wrong because god says so. Slavery is wrong because of the real world consequences. Stealing the labor of others, treating humans like property and all that goes along with that - poor health, no freedom, and on and on."

The Judeo-Christian God is the god of the oppressed; it is impossible to separate religosity from the human-rights issues of the so-called "real world." Utterly impossible.

is not morally equivalent of a mob.

VN and other wars that were perpetrated by a democratically elected government doesn't make them right either.

There is simply a difference. In one case society is condoning or permitting the violence - yes I know it's not a perfect world and there may still be large numbers of dissenters or the government may be acting "ahead of the curve" and do something horrid before it can be removed - in the case of a mob a small group or an individual who incites the mob is trying to impose their will on others.

As I said Brown's goal of freeing slaves was laudable but his path was drawn incorrectly and he probably caused more harm than good.

And it certainly is possible to separate judeo-christian religiosity from human rights of the "real world". Some groups of followers of those religions have done it themselves from time to time. And my point was that not everyone agreed on the rational of Brown on why slavery was evil. To paraphrase Ben Franklin, a sin is not a sin just because god says so, a sin is something that does harm. There are plenty of reasons that slavery is wrong that can be seen without believing in god and even those who believe in god can agree that those things are evil.

Robert E. Lee who was still an officer in the Union Army was the leader of the soldiers sent to arrest Brown.

The first person killed by Brown's group was a free black man.

YankeyMCC

"every group of dissenters..is not morally equivalent of a mob."

I have no idea what you mean when you use the word "mob". Brown's followers were not a mob, not by any definition that I know of. They were his supporters, and co-revolutionaries in the rebellion they attempted to foster.

you say:
"in the case of a mob a small group or an individual who incites the mob is trying to impose their will on others."

No, Brown is trying to bring about a rebellion of slaves against their owners. He is not trying to impose anything on anyone else, the rebelling slaves would be doing that.

"As I said Brown's goal of freeing slaves was laudable but his path was drawn incorrectly and he probably caused more harm than good."

How can you possibly evaluate that? He was tried and hanged. The most direct result of his actions was that other abolitionists who took up his cause and used his name to rally support for the end of slavery. All of this led up to the Civil War, which was started by the South, just to be clear about it. That Civil War freed the slaves, and was the result of the actions of John Brown and others, many inspired by John Brown.

"And it certainly is possible to separate judeo-christian religiosity from human rights of the "real world"."

But why do it? Religion is part of the real world, and it was very definitely part of the real world of 1850s America. The Judeo-Christian tradition is about God being the source of justice, therefore bringing justice front and center to Western consciousness and discussion. From concepts of justice comes concepts of human rights.

I have no idea why you are trying to separate religion from human rights in this discussion. I would point out that many slaves who were Christian used the Old Testament stories of the enslaved Jews in Egypt to inspire their own survival.

equate human rights and religion.

And I never said religious belief precludes supporting human rights. Just like atheism doesn't preclude human rights. Seems to me religous belief should be supportive of human rights even if it has failed in practice at times. I am simply making a point about the divisiveness of Brown's motivations and actions.

So I was separating them because that is my problem with people like John Brown. And my point was that what he did was more divisive than unifying. Yes lots of people used him or some version of his story as a railing cry. But to credit him with freeing the slaves after the civil war is quiet a stretch. Lincoln's more secular approach to justifying the war did a lot more to unify people. He was able to convince the less fanatical abolitionists, and indeed the general public (in the north at least) who probably did not think of themselves as abolitionists to support the war. Yes I know he spoke of god but not to the extreme that Brown did and while he based his moral stance on something like god he laid out a much more secular, at least secular leaning, argument for joining the war.

I certainly haven't said anything about who started the war if you want to bring that up sure I agree it was the south, they were trying to push their "peculiar institution" on the rest of the nation and "project" their power within the nation.

So you disagree. Ok.

The issue realize isn't whether John Brown was divisive, the issue is whether, first, his cause was just, which it certainly was, and second, was his methods appropriate to achieving his goals, which is certainly arguable.

Diviseness and unity are secondary issues, ending slavery the primary issue.

John Brown didn't exist in a void, he was part of a continuum of the anti-slavery movement that went back to before the Revolutionary War. The result of his life and death is that he was extraordinarily effective as a symbolic champion of the anti-slavery movement in America. That is simply the way it worked, regardless of the outcome at Harper's Ferry.

Lincoln was elected on a platform to prevent new territories from entering the Union as slave states. The Southern states seceeded after he won the election and before he even took office. Lincoln didn't unify people, he lost half the country and had to fight a war to get it back.

He also didn't attempt to sell the war in the North as a way of freeing slaves, but to restore the Union, and nothing else.

was together on saving the union or ending slavery. He unified them a lot more than John Brown did. The non-abolitionists, even the ones who thought slavery was bad, were turned off by what happened at Harper's Ferry.

John Brown certainly didn't unify people in the south either. Overall I think it's pretty safe to say Lincoln was more of a unifier than Brown.

Lincoln sold the war on many levels, saving the Union was prominent one from the start, but slavery was not absent from his sales pitch and grew over the years to sustain support of the war. In fact he was always clear that slavery was at the root of what was dividing the union. (I'm basing this on a lot of reading I've done on Lincoln but primarily "Lincoln's Virtues by Willian Miller)

But we are diverting from the topic. I have said several times, Brown's goals were laudable. I don't like his methods, I think his motivations bordered on the dangerous, were not very different from the mobs that killed abolitionists, and lead in a dangerous direction.

You disagree, shrug. That's what the thread asked, what people thought about Brown I expressed my thoughts that is all. Granted I took liberties in answering because I'm atheist and not christian so I'll ask pardon for that, since the subject asked only for christians to answer, but not my opinion of John Brown.

on edit: added book reference

YankeyMCC:
"Not everyone in the North was together on saving the union or ending slavery. He unified them a lot more than John Brown did. The non-abolitionists, even the ones who thought slavery was bad, were turned off by what happened at Harper's Ferry.

John Brown certainly didn't unify people in the south either. Overall I think it's pretty safe to say Lincoln was more of a unifier than Brown."

I don't understand the most basic point of your argument. Why is unity more important than racial justice? The important and moral issue is to end slavery, not to create unity. What is the point of any unity if it is unjust and immoral?

You continued the point on unity and I followed through, and tried again to explain why I don't consider John Brown a hero. Because I think his actions caused more harm than good. You want to look at his goal in a vacuum, I don't.

But I did already say we were driffing from the topic. I don't understand why it bothers you so much that I don't agree with you.

YankeyMCC:
"You want to look at his goal in a vacuum, I don't."

Sorry, it is I who connected Brown's actions to events before and after, and pointed out the historical context of his actions. I see little from you that you know what the context is.

I am just trying to understand your logic, not the historical legacy of John Brown OR the intent of the original poster about the impact of Brown's religious views on his actions

The problem is not that I disagree with you, the problem is that your position in relation to unity makes little sense from where I stand.

You say for me to "try again". Yet, you want to remove every avenue I try to take.

You say you're the one pointing out the context but that you not trying to understand the "historical legacy of John Brown" or "the intent of the original poster"

???

This is just turning into some sort of personal game I think where you're trying to score some points. I don't agree with you and each time I try to make a point you dismiss the point as irrelavent. There's no way I can win.

So you win. Have a good night.

;)