Author Topic: greenbriar primitive asks about John Brown  (Read 2287 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline franksolich

  • Scourge of the Primitives
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 58722
  • Reputation: +3102/-173
greenbriar primitive asks about John Brown
« on: May 07, 2009, 05:14:21 AM »
http://www.democraticunderground.org/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5606875

Oh my.

Scratch another topic off the "what the primitives don't think about" list.

Quote
greenbriar  (1000+ posts)      Wed May-06-09 06:40 PM
Original message
 
John Brown: was he a hero or a terrorist?

This is the persuasive writing essay prompt my students have to do next week.

I am trying to give them all the info necessary to make an informed paper

what say you?

let me add, this is not my prompt but the districts. All 7th graders are doing this same writing in the next two weeks. I think it is a fascinating subject, but also a little deep for these students as they really do not have an extensive knowledge of John Brown and we do not have the time to do a complete study as I would like to do.

Quote
Davis_X_Machina  (1000+ posts)      Wed May-06-09 06:47 PM
Response to Original message
 
2. Pretty clearly Potawatomie and Harpers' Ferry both

...fit the present-day legal definition of 'terrorism' in 22 USC 2656: "The term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience."

Quote
greenbriar  (1000+ posts)      Wed May-06-09 06:52 PM
Response to Original message
 
4. do the ends justify the means?

is it okay to kill all slave owners to free the slaves?

I asked that today...many said yea

Quote
The Straight Story  (1000+ posts)        Wed May-06-09 06:53 PM
Response to Original message

5. Both - a hero for a cause, a terrorist for the methods employed

Quote
summer borealis (216 posts)      Wed May-06-09 06:53 PM
Response to Original message
 
6. He was both

Quote
nomorenomore08 (1000+ posts)      Wed May-06-09 06:58 PM
Response to Original message
 
7. It's easy 150 years later to see him as heroic, and I agree with that view myself.

But as mentioned by someone upthread, his actions did meet the legal definition of "terrorism." And of course, anyone using violence to further a political end, no matter what that end is, thinks his/her cause is just. Just goes to show that "right" and "wrong" are subjective concepts, and that hindsight is always 20/20...

Quote
Marr (1000+ posts)      Thu May-07-09 12:16 AM
Response to Reply #7
 
31. It was easy to see him as a hero at the time, as well.

He was a sympathetic and popular character in his own time. I'd say much more so than he is today, in fact.

Quote
watrwefitinfor  (803 posts)      Wed May-06-09 07:52 PM
Response to Original message
 
10. I believe him quite heroic.

And perhaps a little mad. Interesting, though, all those who followed him, in both Kansas and Virginia. He must have had great personal appeal.

Quote
Xithras (1000+ posts)        Wed May-06-09 08:02 PM
Response to Original message
 
11. People today confuse the terms rebel and terrorist. He was the former, and there is a difference. 

A terrorist kills unarmed innocent people in order to scare the larger population into caving to their demands. A rebel doesn't care about getting the population to cave, but instead simply uses force to achieve his means directly.

Brown was a rebel and an insurrectionist, he wasn't a terrorist. He wasn't trying to scare America into banning slavery, he was trying to free them himself, by force. 

Quote
yellowcanine (1000+ posts)      Wed May-06-09 08:43 PM
Response to Original message
 
13. I would say neither. He tried to start an insurrection and failed. 

Nobody was really terrorized and he essentially accomplished nothing except getting some people killed.

Someone please explain that primitive logic to me.  Please.

Quote
coalition_unwilling (1000+ posts)      Wed May-06-09 09:13 PM
Response to Reply #13
 
16. Your opinion stands in stark contrast to that of Frederick Douglass, who nnted that while he had lived his life to free the slaves, Brown had died to free them.

Quote
tabasco  (1000+ posts)        Wed May-06-09 08:53 PM
Response to Original message
 
14. He would have done better to support abolitionist pro-war efforts in the North rather than conduct an armed insurrection.

He may have made a good officer in the Union army, who knows?

Personally, I consider him heroic but misguided.

Quote
DearAbby  (1000+ posts)      Wed May-06-09 08:57 PM
Response to Original message
 
15. Placing myself in that time period, I would have to view his acts as terrorism. The acts of violence were not justified. What was accomplished via his actions? Was war the only means to the same goal? Did we have to inflict this bloody wound upon ourselves to rid the country of the cancer called slavery? Looking back, it took another 100 yrs for Blacks to gain a semblance of equal rights. Makes you wonder who profited most on the Civil war?

Quote
coalition_unwilling (1000+ posts)      Wed May-06-09 09:57 PM
Response to Reply #15
 
20. You write that the "acts of violence were not justified" but are you aware of "Bleeding Kansas" (where Brown first made his bones)? To say nothing of the massive violence perpetrated on African Americans by Southern slaveholders and their mercenary agents?

Brown's "acts of violence" pale to insignificance in comparison.

Last time I checked, Abe Lincoln did not fire the first shots at Fort Sumpter. As James McPherson has noted, the South could have re-joined the Umion after McClellan's botched Peninsula campaign with its vile institution largely intact. That it did not do so suggests that the South willfully chose war, while the North had war forced upon it.

Quote
DearAbby  (1000+ posts)      Wed May-06-09 10:33 PM
Response to Reply #20
 
23. John Brown's act preceded the war as did the acts of bleeding Kansas. The war was fought because the states had considered seceding from the nation, nothing about slavery was stated until the fall of 1862 with the proclamation, again a considerable amount of time following John Brown's failed attempt to start an insurrection.

I have the advantage of looking back. Seeing the after effects, what changes the proclamation had, when it took 100 years following the surrender of Lee, for Black Americans to gain their full rights. I can see very little the war had on that issue.

Quote
Hanse (1000+ posts)      Thu May-07-09 12:12 AM
Response to Reply #23
 
29. So the Civil War wasn't about slavery, and didn't really accomplish anything.

OK.

Thanks for the Bluto Blutarski "did we give up when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor" point of view.

Quote
DearAbby  (1000+ posts)      Thu May-07-09 12:15 AM
Response to Reply #29

30. think about it

I view the Civil war as incomplete..the North won the shooting war..it was the second part of the war the North lost...the Reconstruction. And thanks for the snide "Bluto Blutarski" remark.

The war was started over the State's individual right to secede. Lincoln felt otherwise. It took two years into the war to even introduce the Freeing the slaves, I would think if Slavery was the main reason of the war, the Proclamation would have been introduced at the start of the war.

Quote
leftofthedial  (1000+ posts)      Wed May-06-09 09:14 PM
Response to Original message
 
17. yes.

the two are not mutually exclusive.

Quote
Ikonoklast  (1000+ posts)        Wed May-06-09 09:24 PM
Response to Original message
 
18. Misguided.

Murdering innocent people in a just cause is still murder.

Quote
WeDidIt  (1000+ posts)      Wed May-06-09 09:26 PM
Response to Original message
 
19. Terrorist

I put him in the same category as anti-abortion doctor murderers.

He's up there with OSama bin LAden, too, it's just that bin LAden had more efficient means of killing people.

Quote
JVS  (1000+ posts)        Wed May-06-09 09:58 PM
Response to Original message
 
21. Herorrist

Quote
KG (1000+ posts)        Wed May-06-09 10:13 PM
Response to Original message
 
22. a nut.

Quote
Saboburns (357 posts)        Wed May-06-09 11:00 PM
Response to Original message
 
24. John Brown wasn't misguided. He was very, very focused.

He experienced the most appalling thing a human could witness.

And he did something about it.

Good for him.

Quote
greenbriar  (1000+ posts)      Wed May-06-09 11:15 PM
Response to Original message
 
25. many believe the bigger his ego got, the more crazy he got

I don't particularly think of him as a hero, I don't condone murder no matter the cause

Quote
oxygen destroyer (24 posts)      Wed May-06-09 11:23 PM
Response to Original message
 
26. He was a credit to his race

Quote
oxygen destroyer (24 posts)      Wed May-06-09 11:24 PM
Response to Reply #26
 
27. In other words, one of the good ones

Quote
AnotherDreamWeaver (360 posts)      Thu May-07-09 01:47 AM
Response to Original message
 
32. Wow, is the district keeping track of the students responses?

Do the students have computers to do web searches on John Brown?

He did make a name for himself. Checking Wikipedia I find this paragraph:

Pottawatomie
Main article: Pottawatomie Massacre

Brown and the free state settlers were optimistic that they could bring Kansas into the union as a slavery-free state. But in late 1855 and early 1856 it was increasingly clear to Brown that pro-slavery forces were willing to violate the rule of law in order to force Kansas to become a slave state. Brown believed that terrorism, fraud, and eventually deadly attacks became the obvious agenda of the pro-slavery supporters, then known as "Border Ruffians."

After the winter snows thawed in 1856, the pro-slavery activists began a campaign to seize Kansas on their own terms. Brown was particularly affected by the Sacking of Lawrence in May 1856, in which a sheriff-led posse destroyed newspaper offices and a hotel. Only one man was killed, and it was a Border Ruffian. Preston Brooks's caning of anti-slavery Senator Charles Sumner also fueled Brown's anger.

These violent acts were accompanied by celebrations in the pro-slavery press, with writers such as Benjamin Franklin Stringfellow of the Squatter Sovereign proclaiming that pro-slavery forces "are determined to repel this Northern invasion, and make Kansas a Slave State; though our rivers should be covered with the blood of their victims, and the carcasses of the Abolitionists should be so numerous in the territory as to breed disease and sickness, we will not be deterred from our purpose" (quoted in Reynolds, p. 162).

Brown was outraged by both the violence of the pro-slavery forces, and also by what he saw as a weak and cowardly response by the antislavery partisans and the Free State settlers, who he described as "cowards, or worse" (Reynolds pp. 163–164).

Reading further in the article it sure sounds like he is defending the terrorism of the southern "Border Ruffians".

Sounds like just a hero to me, defending his sons property.

I'm from Calif. and had to look up his history.

Quote
fujiyama (1000+ posts)      Thu May-07-09 03:50 AM
Response to Original message
 
33. Both and a bit deluded as well.

He was morally just in acting to defeat an obvious evil, but his methods were arguably wrong.

I suppose, we can look at it in the context of the times and war in general. How do we view "collateral damage" in general? If we view Brown's actions as part of a larger war on the institution of slavery itself, the slaveholders may be seen as collateral damage - though, I suppose it can be asked if they were truly civilians in the traditional sense if they participated to protect the institution.

Brown's actions still resonate because it poses eternal questions of how many lives should be risked for the greater good and what the price of martyrdom is worth...

Quote
JonLP24  (1000+ posts)      Thu May-07-09 04:55 AM
Response to Original message
 
35. It's hard for me to label him a terrorist when the pro-slavery forces were militant

I believe his actions where in response to their actions. Violence was common as well during that era so I consider him a man of the era. Kansas I feel he was mostly protecting his family and trying to keep it an anti-slave state. The raid I feel was well intended but many things went wrong. I think he lit the spark that led to the civil war and the ending of slavery.

I can't predict what would've happened if it wasn't for him but before all the violence he was truly a great man. I watched a history channel documentary of him and I absolutely feel in love with him. I did not make it to the violent parts to have a complete view but I know full well the pro-slavery forces were militant and I feel his actions were in response to their actions. These are just opinions but I find it real hard to label him a terrorist when it seemed battles were common for that era. He was just a man of the era imo.

Quote
DU AdBot (1000+ posts)      Thu May 07th 2009, 05:49 AM
Response to Original message

Harpers Ferry Hotels

Compare cheap hotel deals in Harpers Ferry
Book now and save!
apres moi, le deluge

Milo Yiannopoulos "It has been obvious since 2016 that Trump carries an anointing of some kind. My American friends, are you so blind to reason, and deaf to Heaven? Can he do all this, and cannot get a crown? This man is your King. Coronate him, and watch every devil shriek, and every demon howl."

Offline miskie

  • Mailman for the VRWC
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10461
  • Reputation: +1035/-54
  • Make America Great Again. Deport some DUmmies.
Re: greenbriar primitive asks about John Brown
« Reply #1 on: May 07, 2009, 05:35:29 AM »
Quote from: greenbriar
greenbriar  (1000+ posts)      Wed May-06-09 06:40 PM
Original message
 
John BrownWilliam Ayers: was he a hero or a terrorist?

<snip>

Edited to reflect the real question greenbriar is interested in.

Offline SSG Snuggle Bunny

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23540
  • Reputation: +2471/-270
  • Voted Rookie-of-the-Year, 3 years running
Re: greenbriar primitive asks about John Brown
« Reply #2 on: May 07, 2009, 06:18:22 AM »
Curiously, Mr Brown professed to be motivated by the christian doctrines and to this day many christians draw parallels between the ideological motivations that allowed slavery and those that allow abortion. I wonder why modern christians are called potential terrorists for their disdain of abortion.*



* NOTE: The US's most (in)famous clinic bomber Eric Rudolf was actually a nihilist. Newsweek or USAToday had the story but since he didn't fit the mold cast by liberal bias the storry has been buried.
According to the Bible, "know" means "yes."

Offline Vagabond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2478
  • Reputation: +166/-52
Re: greenbriar primitive asks about John Brown
« Reply #3 on: May 07, 2009, 09:21:08 AM »
Yes, John Brown was a terrorist.  His declared goal was to use violence, intimidation, theft, vandalism, and coercion against citizens who, rightly or wrongly, were abiding the law.  Of course, this is just how his yankee financiers wanted it.  Neither John Brown or the yankee financiers were willing to accept any reasonable diplomatic solution. 

They could have made their case that slavery was morally reprehensible.  They could have offered to purchase the slaves freedom.  They rejected such options as outright.

John Brown raided Harper's Ferry hoping to start a slave insurrection.  What would the only possible outcome of such an event if fully successful have been?  All of the slaves participating would have been killed along with any whites caught helping them.  Further something similar to pogroms would likely have occurred, and any attempt at ending slavery through legislation would have been delayed years into the future.

The yankees feigned their moral outrage when this low criminal was properly tried and hanged.  Less than six months later that scoundrel Lincoln began the War of Northern Agression.  Odd that during the Mexican War, Lincoln pronounced such wars to be unjust.
There comes a time when even good men must run up the black flag of anarchy and slit throats. - H.L. Mencken

Offline DumbAss Tanker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28493
  • Reputation: +1710/-151
Re: greenbriar primitive asks about John Brown
« Reply #4 on: May 07, 2009, 09:40:37 AM »
The fact that you are a homicidal psychopath working for a worthy end does not change the fact that you are a homicidal psychopath.
Go and tell the Spartans, O traveler passing by
That here, obedient to their law, we lie.

Anything worth shooting once is worth shooting at least twice.

Offline Splashdown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6729
  • Reputation: +475/-100
  • Out of 9 lives, I spent 7
Re: greenbriar primitive asks about John Brown
« Reply #5 on: May 07, 2009, 09:46:23 AM »
The fact that you are a homicidal psychopath working for a worthy end does not change the fact that you are a homicidal psychopath.

Well put--Hi 5
Let nothing trouble you,
Let nothing frighten you. 
All things are passing;
God never changes.
Patience attains all that it strives for.
He who has God lacks nothing:
God alone suffices.
--St. Theresa of Avila



"No crushed ice; no peas." -- Undies

Offline Ralph Wiggum

  • It's unpossible that I'm a
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19491
  • Reputation: +2549/-49
Re: greenbriar primitive asks about John Brown
« Reply #6 on: May 07, 2009, 09:49:04 AM »
This stupid bitch should have her teaching credentials revoked for asking a cesspool such as the DUmp for advice about what to teach her students. :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
Voted hottest "chick" at CU - My hotness transcends gender


Offline Tucker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10937
  • Reputation: +540/-97
  • Making money the old fashioned way- Paid Mole
Re: greenbriar primitive asks about John Brown
« Reply #7 on: May 07, 2009, 10:52:23 AM »
How will she grade the papers of the students that she disagrees with  :confused:
Come to think of it, unions do create jobs. Companies have to hire two workers to do the work of one.

Offline AprilRazz

  • I love my...
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2705
  • Reputation: +202/-16
Re: greenbriar primitive asks about John Brown
« Reply #8 on: May 07, 2009, 11:29:06 AM »
How will she grade the papers of the students that she disagrees with  :confused:
I am sure that they will all be referred for counseling.
Proud Navy Wife and Veteran

"How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual... as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of." Suzanna Hupp


racist – A statement of surrender during an argument. When two people or disputants are engaged in an acrimonious debate, the side that first says “Racist!” has conceded defeat. Synonymous with saying “Resign” during a chess game, or “Uncle” during a schoolyard fight. Ori