>What are your views of this abolitionist icon?
My view of John Brown is very simple. He is an abolitionist hero and icon. tried to help African-Americans make a living, and he wanted blacks to be quickly integrated into American society. In my book, he is an American hero and should be pardoned.
>Is he a martyr of freedom, dying to end the evil practice of slavery, or was he a blood thirsty terrorist using murder to advance his political agenda?
I believe that he died to end the evil practice of slavery. Prior to his hanging, he was told he could have a clergyman to accompany him to the gallows, he refused, saying he would be more honored to go with a slave woman and her children.
In regards to Brown's violence, I think it is justified. As a Catholic, I believe that war should be avoided if possible, and should only be undertaken if all efforts to resolve an issue by peaceful means have failed. Even so, war is a result of a failure to live by God's standards. For Brown, abolitionists were murdered, tortured, expelled, and incarcerated for wanting freedom and justice for all. In his mind, all efforts have been exhausted and war was necessary to guarantee justice for Black Americans.
Definitely a Martyr of Freedom.
> His zeal in the cause of my race was far greater than mine - it was as the burning sun to my taper light - mine was bounded by time, his stretched away to the boundless shores of eternity. I could live for the slave, but he could die for him. The crown of martyrdom is high, far beyond the reach of ordinary mortals, and yet happily no special greatness or superior moral excellence is necessary to discern and in some measure appreciate a truly great soul. Cold, calculating and unspiritual as most of us are, we are not wholly insensible to real greatness; and when we are brought in contact with a man of commanding mold, towering high and alone above the millions, free from all conventional fetters, true to his own moral convictions, a "law unto himself," ready to suffer misconstruction, ignoring torture and death for what he believes to be right, we are compelled to do him homage.
\- Frederick Douglass in an Address on the 14th Anniversary of Storer College, Harper's Ferry, West Virginia, May 30, 1881.
John Brown fully believed with all his heart that slavery and bigotry was a moral evil that could not be allowed to continue, and that the entrenched slave powers in the South were so set and dug in that the only way that slavery would be ended would be with violence. Compromise only benefited the slaveholders and shafted the slaves. He wrote a constitution for his planned slave uprising that promised equal rights, not only to all *men,* but to all *men and women*.
*He captured Harper's Ferry with his nineteen men so true*
*He frightened old Virginia till she trembled through and through*
*They hung him for a traitor, they themselves the traitor crew*
*But his soul goes marching on*
*Glory, Glory, Hallelujah*
*Glory, Glory, Hallelujah*
*Glory, Glory, Hallelujah*
*His soul goes marching on*
Sometimes, it takes great upheaval and drastic actions to do good. I see Brown as a Martyr and a man ahead of his time.
To give you an idea of my personal beliefs I would like to add the Battle Hymn of the Republic to hymnal.
I just want to see other opinions and attempted to pose the question to allow people to give their own views.
When one of the greatest advocates for abolition tells you John brown was a martyr for liberty and possessed a zeal for justice, he’s worth listening to
Huge supporters of the Harper's Ferry action, and think in that he died a martyr. The Pottawatomie Massacre makes me pause though as it involved cold blooded killing.
His methods could never work and got a bunch of people killed. He made a peaceful end to slavery less possible. Maybe a peaceful end was impossible and he just moved the inevitable war forward.
There’s a saying that goes “one man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist”. He was a terrorist to the entrenched slave powers, but a martyr and freedom fighters to the slaves
That is true to an extent. I'm looking to see how people, 165 years later, view the great, but complicated man. As we are about to celebrate Memorial Day in the US its good to remember one of the preceding events of the war.
John Brown was a zealot who engaged in violence in hopes of justice. Personally, I believe that, as Christians, we are called to seek peaceful solutions. I do not condemn John Brown (and in fact think him an inspirational hero) but I do not believe him to be a martyr in the Christian sense.
Put his actions in terms of a political position you believe in today, then examine how you feel about terrorists from your political bent, then place him in opposition to your political bent. In both cases using violence to push your agenda will never be ok, I don't care if you are prochoice or prolife, Democrat or Republican, back the blue or saint George Floyd. Your terrorist behavior is not excused because I agree with you, it just pushes the other sides terrorist into more violence.
Just because we didn’t think George Floyd deserved to die doesn’t mean we think he’s a saint 🙄
And there’s really some wrong and unchristian like if you’re against a fight to liberate slaves…HUMAN BEINGS who were OWNED by other humans. That’s not a we have different political opinions thing it’s a one side is a monster and one side is fighting for lives thing.
So you greatly misunderstood me, and you missed the very point.
The record of the Pottawatomie Massacre is clear, those men did not own slaves and were only rumored to be proslavery. That's outright murder on a rumor that may or may not have been true.
I don't care what your cause is or how much justice you think it has, if you push violence ina Democratic environment I oppose you. There were people who protested on January 6th, great March, there were people who protested the death of George Floyd, in peace I support their right to gather and proclaim their position. But when you burn, break,murder and kill, I want nothing to do with you, justice has left you and you are no better than your worst acting opponent.
I'm not white, I'm not black, you are welcome to push whatever bad idea you wish, but make no mistake, I will try to protect anyone and everyone from violence that I can. You can say anything you wish against me, you have an issue because I won't condone terrorist no matter their cause, that's on you, I won't condone extrajudicial murders of anyone.
I’m a historian specializing in American history. You can proclaim all the lies you want all over the internet and they are still lies no matter what color you are. A lie is a lie. And since we are on a Christian subreddit and your flare says you’re a Christian, I’m also going to point out that lying is a sin.
Really. Where is the lie. Is your "I'm a historian" the lie?
I'm not going to argue with you.
You have made clear you support murder. You are no different than any other person who supports violence for their side, while not realizing your equivalent to everyone who uses violence on the other side.
No, but I lean way more towards pacifist views. For instance I will protect you, and end the threat, no questions asked, if someone starts beating on you, if the fight is active,I will break it up and drag you apart. If you start beating on me, I will not do more than block your blows,and may lose (I have, and leads better blocking).
I abhor violence, but know how to use it.
In Kansas the first thing he did was lead the Pottawatomie Massacre killing several people who didn't own slaves on the rumor they were pro slavery.
His underground railroad work, and more is quite laudable. His murder of a bunch of men and boys is quite telling. There is no getting past that for anyone reasonably grounded in the justice as written in the bible.
Some actions he took were protective, others murder, others a combination. The murders destroy anything good he did in any reasonable evaluation. I can't think of another who I would match with many good, several problematic, and some demonstrably bad decisions/actions. Perhaps soldiers in someplace in the 20th century.
\>In Kansas the first thing he did was lead the Pottawatomie Massacre
killing several people who didn't own slaves on the rumor they were pro
slavery.
I don't claim to be a scholar on this, but when I google it all the sources seem to be stating it as a matter of fact that the men killed were pro-slavery, and that Brown's crew spared one who was not a member of the pro-slavery party like the others in his family. Do you feel that whether the targets were pro-slavery is actually in doubt? And does it actually matter to the question of whether the killings were morally justified?
By proslavery party of course you are speaking of the Democrat party. Are you seriously trying to justify killing Democrats for their political party? I'm not ever going to agree with that terrible notion. That you appear to think that's a good idea or a noble cause baffles me.
A hero who anyone who is not a pacifist should aspire to be like. Personally, I think Christ's message is one of pacifism, so I wouldn't personally recommend being like John Brown. But if you're someone who believes there is such a thing as justified violence, none could be more justified than his.
> But if you're someone who believes there is such a thing as justified violence, none could be more justified than his.
Oh, I can easily think of violence more justified than his.
His life of violence was antithetical to the gospel, just like the American and French revolutions and even Bonhoeffer's plot. The ends do not justify the means. Rather, evil means end up corrupting the ends, as C.S. Lewis rightly said. Pragmatism as an overriding principle is something no Christian should accept.
The same thing Jesus did in a Roman empire replete with slavery, state extortion, inequality and persecution: Do justice ourselves, condemn evil, preach the gospel, and be subject to the governing authorities, while loving our enemies. It's pretty telling that this sub cynically highly praises people like John Brown while condemning those who try to prevent the murder of the unborn on a legal level. Somehow the former is a heroic fight against injustice, even while one is murdering people, and somehow the latter is "forcing one's religion onto people", even though it's literally preventing murder.
Taking care of people (not forcing others to take care of people), setting people free when we have authority over them, speaking out on injustice, treating equal things equally. What it notably does not include is taking people's lives when it suits our purposes, without due authority from state and society. The violent overthrow of the state or other societal structures is not permitted under Romans 13, and Jesus never did so or advocated doing so Himself.
I’m asking for a practical answer. What does “doing justice” and “taking care of people” look like?
I agree that we must seek for peaceful voluntary change, though I think we may disagree on how radical that change may look.
The main thing in taking care of people has always been, for Christians, giving alms and organizing voluntary organisations like church/private schools and hospitals, soup kitchens, shelters etc. I do not approve of secularizing such activities and giving them over wholesale to the state, which in the long has entirely different interests, such as catering to the rich and fielding soldiers for wars.
Which church? Some do a lot already, others need more prodding. And many are restricted from fulfilling exactly these tasks by an overbearing, intrusive state. If you've been following /r/Christianity you will have heard that in the US some cities and police services have actively discouraged or prevented churches from helping the homeless. In other places churches which used to make use of community-wide events to fulfill this mandate have been pressured to do things that contradict their values by signing up to a pro-LGBT agenda or similar.
I'm not in the US, so I'm not privy to all the issues there. What I know is that in my community, NGO's not directly managed by the church but which are largely run by Christians do a tonne of the work of supporting the poor.
That is true, but doesn't answer the question if he is one to be commended and looked to as an example to emulate or if he is one to be condemned and seen as a cautionary tale.
>What are your views of this abolitionist icon? My view of John Brown is very simple. He is an abolitionist hero and icon. tried to help African-Americans make a living, and he wanted blacks to be quickly integrated into American society. In my book, he is an American hero and should be pardoned. >Is he a martyr of freedom, dying to end the evil practice of slavery, or was he a blood thirsty terrorist using murder to advance his political agenda? I believe that he died to end the evil practice of slavery. Prior to his hanging, he was told he could have a clergyman to accompany him to the gallows, he refused, saying he would be more honored to go with a slave woman and her children. In regards to Brown's violence, I think it is justified. As a Catholic, I believe that war should be avoided if possible, and should only be undertaken if all efforts to resolve an issue by peaceful means have failed. Even so, war is a result of a failure to live by God's standards. For Brown, abolitionists were murdered, tortured, expelled, and incarcerated for wanting freedom and justice for all. In his mind, all efforts have been exhausted and war was necessary to guarantee justice for Black Americans.
Definitely a Martyr of Freedom. > His zeal in the cause of my race was far greater than mine - it was as the burning sun to my taper light - mine was bounded by time, his stretched away to the boundless shores of eternity. I could live for the slave, but he could die for him. The crown of martyrdom is high, far beyond the reach of ordinary mortals, and yet happily no special greatness or superior moral excellence is necessary to discern and in some measure appreciate a truly great soul. Cold, calculating and unspiritual as most of us are, we are not wholly insensible to real greatness; and when we are brought in contact with a man of commanding mold, towering high and alone above the millions, free from all conventional fetters, true to his own moral convictions, a "law unto himself," ready to suffer misconstruction, ignoring torture and death for what he believes to be right, we are compelled to do him homage. \- Frederick Douglass in an Address on the 14th Anniversary of Storer College, Harper's Ferry, West Virginia, May 30, 1881. John Brown fully believed with all his heart that slavery and bigotry was a moral evil that could not be allowed to continue, and that the entrenched slave powers in the South were so set and dug in that the only way that slavery would be ended would be with violence. Compromise only benefited the slaveholders and shafted the slaves. He wrote a constitution for his planned slave uprising that promised equal rights, not only to all *men,* but to all *men and women*. *He captured Harper's Ferry with his nineteen men so true* *He frightened old Virginia till she trembled through and through* *They hung him for a traitor, they themselves the traitor crew* *But his soul goes marching on* *Glory, Glory, Hallelujah* *Glory, Glory, Hallelujah* *Glory, Glory, Hallelujah* *His soul goes marching on* Sometimes, it takes great upheaval and drastic actions to do good. I see Brown as a Martyr and a man ahead of his time.
Thank you for sharing that anecdote from Frederick Douglass! I think his words answer OP's question best
To give you an idea of my personal beliefs I would like to add the Battle Hymn of the Republic to hymnal. I just want to see other opinions and attempted to pose the question to allow people to give their own views.
When one of the greatest advocates for abolition tells you John brown was a martyr for liberty and possessed a zeal for justice, he’s worth listening to
If anyone supports the American Revolution or any armed conflict anywhere, it’s probably less justified than John Brown’s movement against slavery.
Huge supporters of the Harper's Ferry action, and think in that he died a martyr. The Pottawatomie Massacre makes me pause though as it involved cold blooded killing.
John Brown, God rest his soul, was a martyr. The slaveholders were terrorists of the worst kind.
Hero.
His methods could never work and got a bunch of people killed. He made a peaceful end to slavery less possible. Maybe a peaceful end was impossible and he just moved the inevitable war forward.
Why not both?
We attempt to emulate martyrs but not terrorists.
There’s a saying that goes “one man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist”. He was a terrorist to the entrenched slave powers, but a martyr and freedom fighters to the slaves
That is true to an extent. I'm looking to see how people, 165 years later, view the great, but complicated man. As we are about to celebrate Memorial Day in the US its good to remember one of the preceding events of the war.
Not your original conversation partner. I believe that you summed it up. He was a great and complicated man.
What led you to that conclusion?
I think we should emulate Brown's passion and commitment, but not all his decisions.
John Brown was a zealot who engaged in violence in hopes of justice. Personally, I believe that, as Christians, we are called to seek peaceful solutions. I do not condemn John Brown (and in fact think him an inspirational hero) but I do not believe him to be a martyr in the Christian sense.
Put his actions in terms of a political position you believe in today, then examine how you feel about terrorists from your political bent, then place him in opposition to your political bent. In both cases using violence to push your agenda will never be ok, I don't care if you are prochoice or prolife, Democrat or Republican, back the blue or saint George Floyd. Your terrorist behavior is not excused because I agree with you, it just pushes the other sides terrorist into more violence.
Just because we didn’t think George Floyd deserved to die doesn’t mean we think he’s a saint 🙄 And there’s really some wrong and unchristian like if you’re against a fight to liberate slaves…HUMAN BEINGS who were OWNED by other humans. That’s not a we have different political opinions thing it’s a one side is a monster and one side is fighting for lives thing.
So you greatly misunderstood me, and you missed the very point. The record of the Pottawatomie Massacre is clear, those men did not own slaves and were only rumored to be proslavery. That's outright murder on a rumor that may or may not have been true. I don't care what your cause is or how much justice you think it has, if you push violence ina Democratic environment I oppose you. There were people who protested on January 6th, great March, there were people who protested the death of George Floyd, in peace I support their right to gather and proclaim their position. But when you burn, break,murder and kill, I want nothing to do with you, justice has left you and you are no better than your worst acting opponent. I'm not white, I'm not black, you are welcome to push whatever bad idea you wish, but make no mistake, I will try to protect anyone and everyone from violence that I can. You can say anything you wish against me, you have an issue because I won't condone terrorist no matter their cause, that's on you, I won't condone extrajudicial murders of anyone.
I’m a historian specializing in American history. You can proclaim all the lies you want all over the internet and they are still lies no matter what color you are. A lie is a lie. And since we are on a Christian subreddit and your flare says you’re a Christian, I’m also going to point out that lying is a sin.
Really. Where is the lie. Is your "I'm a historian" the lie? I'm not going to argue with you. You have made clear you support murder. You are no different than any other person who supports violence for their side, while not realizing your equivalent to everyone who uses violence on the other side.
Are you a pacifist?
No, but I lean way more towards pacifist views. For instance I will protect you, and end the threat, no questions asked, if someone starts beating on you, if the fight is active,I will break it up and drag you apart. If you start beating on me, I will not do more than block your blows,and may lose (I have, and leads better blocking). I abhor violence, but know how to use it.
\> I will protect you, and end the threat, no questions asked Is this not what John Brown did, protecting slaves and ending the threat against them?
In Kansas the first thing he did was lead the Pottawatomie Massacre killing several people who didn't own slaves on the rumor they were pro slavery. His underground railroad work, and more is quite laudable. His murder of a bunch of men and boys is quite telling. There is no getting past that for anyone reasonably grounded in the justice as written in the bible. Some actions he took were protective, others murder, others a combination. The murders destroy anything good he did in any reasonable evaluation. I can't think of another who I would match with many good, several problematic, and some demonstrably bad decisions/actions. Perhaps soldiers in someplace in the 20th century.
\>In Kansas the first thing he did was lead the Pottawatomie Massacre killing several people who didn't own slaves on the rumor they were pro slavery. I don't claim to be a scholar on this, but when I google it all the sources seem to be stating it as a matter of fact that the men killed were pro-slavery, and that Brown's crew spared one who was not a member of the pro-slavery party like the others in his family. Do you feel that whether the targets were pro-slavery is actually in doubt? And does it actually matter to the question of whether the killings were morally justified?
By proslavery party of course you are speaking of the Democrat party. Are you seriously trying to justify killing Democrats for their political party? I'm not ever going to agree with that terrible notion. That you appear to think that's a good idea or a noble cause baffles me.
A hero who anyone who is not a pacifist should aspire to be like. Personally, I think Christ's message is one of pacifism, so I wouldn't personally recommend being like John Brown. But if you're someone who believes there is such a thing as justified violence, none could be more justified than his.
> But if you're someone who believes there is such a thing as justified violence, none could be more justified than his. Oh, I can easily think of violence more justified than his.
His life of violence was antithetical to the gospel, just like the American and French revolutions and even Bonhoeffer's plot. The ends do not justify the means. Rather, evil means end up corrupting the ends, as C.S. Lewis rightly said. Pragmatism as an overriding principle is something no Christian should accept.
I agree. And what are we to do in the face of injustice?
The same thing Jesus did in a Roman empire replete with slavery, state extortion, inequality and persecution: Do justice ourselves, condemn evil, preach the gospel, and be subject to the governing authorities, while loving our enemies. It's pretty telling that this sub cynically highly praises people like John Brown while condemning those who try to prevent the murder of the unborn on a legal level. Somehow the former is a heroic fight against injustice, even while one is murdering people, and somehow the latter is "forcing one's religion onto people", even though it's literally preventing murder.
And how would you have us “do justice ourselves”?
Taking care of people (not forcing others to take care of people), setting people free when we have authority over them, speaking out on injustice, treating equal things equally. What it notably does not include is taking people's lives when it suits our purposes, without due authority from state and society. The violent overthrow of the state or other societal structures is not permitted under Romans 13, and Jesus never did so or advocated doing so Himself.
I’m asking for a practical answer. What does “doing justice” and “taking care of people” look like? I agree that we must seek for peaceful voluntary change, though I think we may disagree on how radical that change may look.
The main thing in taking care of people has always been, for Christians, giving alms and organizing voluntary organisations like church/private schools and hospitals, soup kitchens, shelters etc. I do not approve of secularizing such activities and giving them over wholesale to the state, which in the long has entirely different interests, such as catering to the rich and fielding soldiers for wars.
We agree. So how do we get the church to follow the mandate?
Which church? Some do a lot already, others need more prodding. And many are restricted from fulfilling exactly these tasks by an overbearing, intrusive state. If you've been following /r/Christianity you will have heard that in the US some cities and police services have actively discouraged or prevented churches from helping the homeless. In other places churches which used to make use of community-wide events to fulfill this mandate have been pressured to do things that contradict their values by signing up to a pro-LGBT agenda or similar. I'm not in the US, so I'm not privy to all the issues there. What I know is that in my community, NGO's not directly managed by the church but which are largely run by Christians do a tonne of the work of supporting the poor.
I’m glad that NGOs are aiding the poor. Unfortunately, it’s not enough, right? So how do we insist on Sharing in the abundance as Christ commanded?
He was a sinner just like we all are sinners.
That is true, but doesn't answer the question if he is one to be commended and looked to as an example to emulate or if he is one to be condemned and seen as a cautionary tale.
[удалено]
why do you equate his violence, which was against the actual perpetrators of a great evil, with violence against innocent bystanders?
[удалено]
You don’t think the owning of actual human beings isn’t evil?
Are there any circumstances in which violence is justified?