John Brown: A Hero, Not a Terrorist - Literature review Example

Full Full Submitted John Brown: A Hero, Not a Terrorist Is John Brown a hero or a terrorist? To this question, it is tempting to answer: It depends on one’s belief regarding black slavery and the use of violence. For example for Southerners who were known for their pro-black slavery stance, Brown was a terrorist, but for northerners who were known for their anti-black slavery stance, Brown was a hero (Finkelman 1; Mondoch 2). In fact until today, America’s perception of Brown is divided along racial lines. For African Americans, Brown is a hero because despite his whiteness he fought with his life to abolish black slavery in the US. But for white Americans, Brown is a mad man because he despised his own race and instead sided with black slaves sacrificing his own life. (Torr 12) Such answer does not clarify the real issue but rather muddles it. It blurs the fact that the real issue at hand is the determination of the justness of Brown’s act, because what differentiates heroism from terrorism is the justness of the act. The hero’s use of violence is justified but the terrorist’s is not. Hence if Brown’s act is proven justified; he is a hero; but if not, he is a terrorist. Understanding two interlocking issues in Brown’s act – the justness of his purpose and the justness of his method – sufficiently prove that Brown is not a terrorist, contrary to the judgment of the State of Virginia when on December 2, 1859, it sentenced Brown to death by hanging for inciting a slave rebellion, for committing first degree murder, and for subverting the state of Virginia (Pamphile 136). Rather, Brown was a hero because his purpose – to abolish slavery, which in itself was a savage act – was not only just but also highly noble, and his means – the use of violence to liberate Africans from slavery – was in fact necessary, because during that time black slavery in the US was brutally institutionalized that no amount of peaceful means could possibly abolish it. Hence, Brown correctly believed that there is no other way to abolish slavery but to match the violence of the state (Gilpin 1). With a just cause and a justified means, there is no doubt that Brown is a hero, not a terrorist. Needless to say that it was Brown’s action and death that brought the anti-slavery north to unite for the struggle against slavery, leading to the abolition of black slavery in the US (Link, John Brown 324). John Brown’s Noble Cause: The Abolition of Black Slavery Black slavery characterized the development of America from the 17th to the 19th century (Morgan 6) with 700,000 black slaves in 1790 to 4 million in the next three decades (Liston 36) shaping America’s socio-economic system (Link, Roots of Secession 13). To a large extent, Morgan argues, American independence was bought with slave labor (6). Paradoxically, Americans “founded a free government – a republican democracy – with slavery as an institution” (Connelley 29). This paradox, Morgan furthers, was more prominent in Virginia with 40% of the US’s total black slaves working in Virginia’s tobacco plantations. (6) In fact, Virginia was no different of the South where ‘slave society’ rather than a ‘society with slaves’ had long existed (Link, Roots of Secession 29). Slavery is despicable. It is evil, so says Weld (28). What makes it so is its oppressive and dehumanizing nature (Liston 35). More than this, Curry and Goodheart emphasize that the wickedness of slavery also comes from the fact that slavery denied Africans to be ‘free moral agents’ (217). Though apologist slave owners claimed to be kind and benevolent to their slaves, this did not override the fact that slaves were in constant toil either under the quota system or the gang system to ensure productivity. But worst of all, slave owners treated their slaves as their possessions or properties, essentially denying them their human dignity. (Liston 40) For Brown, slavery is a capital sin because it violates the very freedom God bestowed upon all men. He therefore believed that every man has the divine duty to uphold the liberty of all people. Not doing so would be a sin of omission. Hence, Brown perceived his fight against slavery as his divine calling to which he willingly obliged. Furthermore, Brown never wanted to compromise the abolition of slavery with peace. He believed that peace could never exist alongside the institution of slavery and that a democratic government condoning and profiting from slavery would better not exist at all. Thus, Brown’s ultimate goal in his fight against slavery was to transform America into a nation that would later lead the world into a higher understanding of liberty. (Connelley 9-10) Brown’s commitment against slavery was further reinforced by the passage of the Fugitive Slave Act in 1850 – an act authorizing federal agents to bring back runaway slaves (Gilpin 15). It should be noted that the issue of black slavery is not simply a matter of denying black people the liberty to have a life of their own; it is not simply a matter of putting black people into oppressive situations; it is not simply a matter of treating black people lower than the white; it is not simply a matter of dehumanizing the blacks. More than these most horrible forms of racial discrimination, the institution of black slavery in the US is about the corruption, exploitation and destruction of the once rich society of Africa which impact can still be felt until today. In short, black slavery had prevented a once great nation to fully develop causing it to persistently suffer until today. “Many of the problems facing black Americans today – including poverty and the breakdown of family structure – are due in large part to the subjugation of blacks under slavery… one of the most immoral acts in the development of the US” (Walters 55-56). All indications undeniably prove two points establishing Brown’s heroism. First, his cause of abolishing slavery was just and noble. Not only was he fulfilling his Christian duty, but he was also fulfilling his patriotic duty by trying to save his country from its lies and elevating it to the higher understanding of liberty – one that transcends colors, one that treats humanity with dignity and equal respect. Second, his fight against slavery was principled. Underlying his abolitionist stance was the clear understanding of peace and justice. Never did he compromise his fight against slavery with superficial peace, despite knowing that by not doing so he would be mistreated and misjudged. It would have been easier for him to compromise, but he knew that unless slavery is abolished there can be no lasting peace, much more can there be no justice. It was also within this framework that Brown understood his use of violence. Justified Violence: The Case of John Brown If all acts of violence regardless of their purpose and context will automatically be dismissed as heroic but rather terroristic; then perhaps no nation would have been truly liberated from various forms of tyranny. History itself has shown the necessary use of violence to bring down the tyranny of oppression and achieve liberty. Almost all nations have taken-up arms to gain their independence from their oppressors. In fact, even Mahatma Gandhi’s most celebrated non-violent struggle for India’s independence from British power had not been free of violence. Neither can it negate justified violence, because its socio-political context did not really necessitate violence. During that time, Britain was no longer interested and was no longer capable to assert its imperial power over India due to its changing economic interests and weakened military and economic strength (Carter 21). India had become an economic liability to Britain. Worse, the Japanese expansionism in 1942 smashed the British power in the East. (Paiver, qtd. in Kahn 402) In short, British left India not because it was threatened by Gandhi’s civil disobedience but for its own military and economic reasons. More importantly in his struggle for an Independent India, Gandhi did consciously spare the Indian capitalist class because he was their ally for them to take control of India out from the British. (Kahn 402) Hence, there was the absence of class struggle. He did not dare change the very oppressive social structure of India. He just changed its rulers. Therefore, the nature of contradiction Gandhi chose to confront was essentially not violent. Unlike Gandhi, the nature of contradiction that Brown felt obliged to confront was brutal and violent, because the black slavery that Brown wanted to abolish persisted by using violence. It was also the socio-economic base of the larger part of America that American states harshly defended it. Those in power argued for the essentiality and nobility of the institution of slavery and persecuted their opponents of moral treason (Link, qtd. in Winsell 473). Hence, the conviction of Brown by the state of Virginia was not an act of justice but a political vendetta, because he dared to challenge the established social order that kept those powerful in power; he dared to expose the malady and hypocrisy of the Republican democracy; and worst of all, he dared to abolish the very institution that was enriching those in power. Clearly, the very nature of Brown’s cause was in fact revolutionary that could never be won with non-violent forms of struggle. Therefore, Brown’s use of violence was justified. Furthermore, understanding Thomas Jefferson’s principles of justified violence would further prove that Brown’s use of violence was indeed justified. One, violence is justified if there is a ‘long train of abuses’ (Finkelman 3). As commonly described, black slavery in America was more than a ‘long train of abuses’ as Jefferson requires. It was in fact a daily life of barbarous inhumanity. It was a life no better than the toiling animals. Slaves were possessions of slave owners treated just like animals for maximum production. (Weld 31-32; Liston 35, 37-42) More importantly, violence is justified if there is no accessible political process for peaceful change (Finkelman 3). Was there any chance to abolish black slavery peacefully? All historical political indicators say no. First of all, it should be noted that “slaveholding dominated life and unfairly distributed political power” (Link, Roots of Secession 11). All available political means, like the legislature and the courts, through which black slavery could be abolished peacefully were all dominated by slaveholders who were rabid defenders of the institution of slavery (15). In fact, the issue of slavery caused a constitutional crisis in Virginia and polarized the north and the south (13). These circumstances only prove the correctness of Brown’s belief “that equality would only come with transformative change and that this change would be precipitated by righteous violence” (Gilpin 5). All indications show that Brown’s use of violence was justified following Jefferson’s principles of justified violence. To further prove the justness of Brown’s violence, it is also noteworthy to answer this question: Is Brown’s violence commensurate to the violence of his adversaries? It should be noted that Brown’s adversary was not simply a group of staunch pro-slavery groups or movements, but it was the state of Virginia. Hence, Brown could in fact be likened to the small David who battled with Goliath. Given this reality, this question is best answered with another question. Is there more violent entity than the state – the state which being is no other than the use of coercion to ensure order? Since Brown was rebelling against state oppression, his use of violence was justifiable. Also, Brown did not use violence indiscriminately. Conclusion To end the savagery of the institution of slavery in Virginia there was no other means but to resort to violence. On the contrary, by not resorting to violence would mean compromising the noble cause of the abolition of slavery with unjustified peace, hence condoning the persistence of injustice. Furthermore, by not resorting to violence could mean more unnecessary deaths among blacks because the institution of slavery would have not been abolished. As Reynolds says: It was Brown who killed slavery (qtd. in Link, John Brown 324). Since what differentiates heroism from terrorism is justified violence, then without an iota of doubt, John Brown is a hero. He laid down his life for a just and noble cause. His was justified violence. In fact, even his death defied the state of Virginia’s portrayal of him as a terrorist and worst a criminal. As Mondoch notes: He was instead “transformed in death – that he was mythologized in story, poetry and art” (2). Works Cited Connelley, William E. Preface. John Brown: Twentieth Century Classics and School Readings. Vol. I. By Connelley. Topeka, Kansas: Crane & Company Publishers, 1900. 7-14. Curry, Richard O. and Goodheart, Lawrence B. “Ambivalence, Ambiguity, and Contradiction: Garrisonian Abolitionists and Nonviolence.” The Journal of Libertarian Studies 6.3-4 (1982): 217-226. Finkelman, Paul. John Brown: America’s First Terrorist? Prologue Magazine 43.1 (2011): 1-15. Gilpin, R. Blakeslee. John Brown Still Lives! Americas Long Reckoning with Violence, Equality, & Change. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 2011. Kahn, Alec. Gandhi and the Myth of Non-Violence. Socialist Alternative. 3 March 2014 . Link, William A. Roots of Secession: Slavery and Politics in Antebellum Virginia. US: The University of North Carolina Press, 2003. Link, William A. “John Brown, Abolitionist: The Man Who Killed Slavery, Sparked the Civil War, and Seeded Civil Rights.” The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 113.3 (2005): 324-325. Liston, Robert. “Slavery Was Oppressive and Dehumanizing.” Slavery: Opposing Viewpoints in World History. Ed. James D. Torr. Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press, 2004. 35-44. Mondoch, Helen. “The Firestorm Unleashed Here: Recalling Harpers Ferry.” The World and I 24.10 (2009): 2. Morgan, Edmund S. “Slavery and Freedom: The American Paradox.” The Journal of American History 59.1 (1972): 5-29. Pamphile, Leon D. “The Haitian Response to the John Brown Tragedy.” Journal of Haitian Studies 12.2 (2006): 135-142. Torr, James D. Foreword. Slavery: Opposing Viewpoints in World History. By Torr. Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press, 2004. 11-12. Walters, Ronald. “The U.S. Government Should Pay Reparations to Blacks for the Harms Caused by Slavery.” Slavery: Opposing Viewpoints in World History. Ed. James D. Torr. Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press, 2004. 55-62. Weld, Theodore Dwight. “Slavery Is Evil.” Slavery: Opposing Viewpoints in World History. Ed. James D. Torr. Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press, 2004. 28-34. Winsell, Keith A. “Roots of Secession: Slavery and Politics in Antebellum Virginia.” The Journal of African American History 91.4 (2006): 473-474. Read More