I’m behind on my postings for this week – had some computer problems that are hopefully resolved. What I hope to write in the next couple of days is a two-part post dealing with John Brown and his raid. The first post, the one you are getting today, deals with some thoughts by Robert E. McGlone in a recent article in Civil War Times. The second part of the article will deal with the reaction of North Carolinians to Brown’s raid at Harper’s Ferry.
It would seem that some people are trying to reform John Brown, shifting him from being labeled a terrorist to a “guerrilla fighting in the revolutionary cause of antislavery.” (per an article entitled “John Brown, terrorist?” in American Nineteenth Century History – March 2009. Since most folks don’t subscribe to that Journal, we will focus on McGlone’s piece.)
McGlone lays out his defense of John Brown in two paragraphs.
At no point did Brown endorse random killings, and he conceived his crusade against slavery as being governed by the rules of honorable warfare. Unlike typical modern terrorists, Brown also personally led guerrilla forces in the field. He treated his hostages at Harper’s Ferry with courtesy and deference rather than using them to shield his retreat from the town.
During the Marines’ assault on his engine house refuge on the grounds of the Federal armory, he shielded them from fire. He conceived the liberation of the slaves as a patriot act, not the destruction of the state. With control of the Harper’s Ferry arsenal… Brown could have wrought havoc upon the town. But he loved the biblical story of Gideon panicking the Midianites, and like Gideon, he hoped to strike fear in the hearts of his adversaries.
First: “At no point did Brown endorse random killings, and he conceived his crusade against slavery as being governed by the rules of honorable warfare.” So, when Brown attacked those living in cabins along Pottawatomie Creek, in retribution for a raid on Lawrence, Kansas, did he act as those “being governed by the rules of honorable warfare”? “At the first cabin, Brown's men brutally killed three Doyle men, splitting open their heads and cutting off their arms. Brown himself reportedly watched as if in a trance. When his men were done, he put a bullet through the head of James Doyle. Then the party went to two more cabins, dragging out and killing two more proslavery men. They killed five in all.” (1) Bear in mind that the while the men whom Brown and his party killed believed in the right of slave ownership, they actually did not own any slaves. We could further add that there were several individuals in Harper’s Ferry that Brown, or his men, killed, and not by the rules of honorable warfare.
Second: “Unlike typical modern terrorists, Brown also personally led guerrilla forces in the field.” There would be hundreds of examples to refute this. I’ll cite just one. Osama bin Laden reportedly carries a Soviet AK-47, which he obtained by killing a Russian soldier with his bare hands. This just might be urban legend, but there are plenty of examples of terrorist leaders taking up arms themselves. Once a terrorist organization grows, these terrorists gain lieutenants to manage their fights.
Three. “He treated his hostages at Harper’s Ferry with courtesy and deference rather than using them to shield his retreat from the town. During the Marines’ assault on his engine house refuge on the grounds of the Federal armory, he shielded them from fire.” Brown told his prisoners “I have only to say now that you will have precisely the same fate that your friends extend to my men.” (4) Which I take to mean that if Brown’s men were killed by the militia, then so would his prisoners be killed.
Four. He conceived the liberation of the slaves as a patriot act…” One of Brown’s sons recalled, in relationship to the murders on Pottawatomie Creek, that John Brown said “It was now and here that they, their aiders and abettors who sought to kill our suffering people should themselves be killed, and in such a manner as should likely to cause a restraining fear.” (2) So, Brown sought to strike fear into his adversaries. McGlone admits as much: “But he loved the biblical story of Gideon panicking the Midianites, and like Gideon, he hoped to strike fear in the hearts of his adversaries.”
Five. “With control of the Harper’s Ferry arsenal… Brown could have wrought havoc upon the town” Well, Hayward Shepherd, a baggage man for the R&O (and a free person of color) was shot and killed by Brown’s men at 1:30 in morning. Another citizen of the town, an Irishman named Boerley “happened to get within range of a picket, -a black fellow who called himself Dangerfield Newby, --whereupon the negro raised his rifle and without a word of warning shot him dead…” Another man, George Turner, moved toward the arsenal, with a shotgun. “When he had approached within some fifty yards… the same negro… saw him coming, and, taking deliberate aim, shot him dead.” (3) A skirmish between Brown’s men in the firehouse and the citizens of the town soon broke out. Fountain Beckham, the mayor of the town, was shot and killed. By all accounts, Beckman was unarmed. There are numerous accounts of terror experienced by the citizens of the town when Brown struck. Then with hundreds of militiamen pouring into the small town, and with a detachment of US Marines, well, the town was in havoc.
Brown wanted to establish a new nation in the Appalachian mountains, a nation composed of freed slaves. So, in a sense, Brown wanted to overthrow the US government and establish his own. And, we might add, slavery, no matter had repugnant, was constitutionally protected at this time. He expected these slaves, once they had heard of Brown’s successful rebellion, to quickly flee from their masters (possibly murdering them in the process) and join other abolitionists. Brown was prepared to use violence to complete his objectives, and had he been able to hold the armory, would have had weapons to achieve his means. Brown gathered a force, secretly made plans, captured a portion of a United States military base, took hostages, terrified local civilians, killed and wounded innocent civilians, killed and wounded United State Marines, and damaged United States property, all under the guise of “this is God’s will.”
According to a online dictionary from Princeton University, a terrorist is “a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities.” (5)
So, I stand by what I wrote above. John Brown was not a patriot, he was not a “guerrilla fighting in the revolutionary cause.” He was a terrorist.
It would seem that some people are trying to reform John Brown, shifting him from being labeled a terrorist to a “guerrilla fighting in the revolutionary cause of antislavery.” (per an article entitled “John Brown, terrorist?” in American Nineteenth Century History – March 2009. Since most folks don’t subscribe to that Journal, we will focus on McGlone’s piece.)
McGlone lays out his defense of John Brown in two paragraphs.
At no point did Brown endorse random killings, and he conceived his crusade against slavery as being governed by the rules of honorable warfare. Unlike typical modern terrorists, Brown also personally led guerrilla forces in the field. He treated his hostages at Harper’s Ferry with courtesy and deference rather than using them to shield his retreat from the town.
During the Marines’ assault on his engine house refuge on the grounds of the Federal armory, he shielded them from fire. He conceived the liberation of the slaves as a patriot act, not the destruction of the state. With control of the Harper’s Ferry arsenal… Brown could have wrought havoc upon the town. But he loved the biblical story of Gideon panicking the Midianites, and like Gideon, he hoped to strike fear in the hearts of his adversaries.
First: “At no point did Brown endorse random killings, and he conceived his crusade against slavery as being governed by the rules of honorable warfare.” So, when Brown attacked those living in cabins along Pottawatomie Creek, in retribution for a raid on Lawrence, Kansas, did he act as those “being governed by the rules of honorable warfare”? “At the first cabin, Brown's men brutally killed three Doyle men, splitting open their heads and cutting off their arms. Brown himself reportedly watched as if in a trance. When his men were done, he put a bullet through the head of James Doyle. Then the party went to two more cabins, dragging out and killing two more proslavery men. They killed five in all.” (1) Bear in mind that the while the men whom Brown and his party killed believed in the right of slave ownership, they actually did not own any slaves. We could further add that there were several individuals in Harper’s Ferry that Brown, or his men, killed, and not by the rules of honorable warfare.
Second: “Unlike typical modern terrorists, Brown also personally led guerrilla forces in the field.” There would be hundreds of examples to refute this. I’ll cite just one. Osama bin Laden reportedly carries a Soviet AK-47, which he obtained by killing a Russian soldier with his bare hands. This just might be urban legend, but there are plenty of examples of terrorist leaders taking up arms themselves. Once a terrorist organization grows, these terrorists gain lieutenants to manage their fights.
Three. “He treated his hostages at Harper’s Ferry with courtesy and deference rather than using them to shield his retreat from the town. During the Marines’ assault on his engine house refuge on the grounds of the Federal armory, he shielded them from fire.” Brown told his prisoners “I have only to say now that you will have precisely the same fate that your friends extend to my men.” (4) Which I take to mean that if Brown’s men were killed by the militia, then so would his prisoners be killed.
Four. He conceived the liberation of the slaves as a patriot act…” One of Brown’s sons recalled, in relationship to the murders on Pottawatomie Creek, that John Brown said “It was now and here that they, their aiders and abettors who sought to kill our suffering people should themselves be killed, and in such a manner as should likely to cause a restraining fear.” (2) So, Brown sought to strike fear into his adversaries. McGlone admits as much: “But he loved the biblical story of Gideon panicking the Midianites, and like Gideon, he hoped to strike fear in the hearts of his adversaries.”
Five. “With control of the Harper’s Ferry arsenal… Brown could have wrought havoc upon the town” Well, Hayward Shepherd, a baggage man for the R&O (and a free person of color) was shot and killed by Brown’s men at 1:30 in morning. Another citizen of the town, an Irishman named Boerley “happened to get within range of a picket, -a black fellow who called himself Dangerfield Newby, --whereupon the negro raised his rifle and without a word of warning shot him dead…” Another man, George Turner, moved toward the arsenal, with a shotgun. “When he had approached within some fifty yards… the same negro… saw him coming, and, taking deliberate aim, shot him dead.” (3) A skirmish between Brown’s men in the firehouse and the citizens of the town soon broke out. Fountain Beckham, the mayor of the town, was shot and killed. By all accounts, Beckman was unarmed. There are numerous accounts of terror experienced by the citizens of the town when Brown struck. Then with hundreds of militiamen pouring into the small town, and with a detachment of US Marines, well, the town was in havoc.
Brown wanted to establish a new nation in the Appalachian mountains, a nation composed of freed slaves. So, in a sense, Brown wanted to overthrow the US government and establish his own. And, we might add, slavery, no matter had repugnant, was constitutionally protected at this time. He expected these slaves, once they had heard of Brown’s successful rebellion, to quickly flee from their masters (possibly murdering them in the process) and join other abolitionists. Brown was prepared to use violence to complete his objectives, and had he been able to hold the armory, would have had weapons to achieve his means. Brown gathered a force, secretly made plans, captured a portion of a United States military base, took hostages, terrified local civilians, killed and wounded innocent civilians, killed and wounded United State Marines, and damaged United States property, all under the guise of “this is God’s will.”
According to a online dictionary from Princeton University, a terrorist is “a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities.” (5)
So, I stand by what I wrote above. John Brown was not a patriot, he was not a “guerrilla fighting in the revolutionary cause.” He was a terrorist.
1. “The Story of John Brown.” Current Events 11 March 2005. Vol. 104, Is. 21.
2. Goodrich, War to the knife: Bleeding Kansas (1998) 123.
3. Ibid., 233
4. Ibid., 236
5. http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=terrorist
