John Brown Terrorist

Referred to as a “antislavery zealot” by some and as a “heroic hand” by others, John Brown was certainly one who stained history with blood. John Brown’s conduction of anti-slavery raids to fight “fire with fire”, triggered by his radical ways to fight the tyranny that was slavery,Brown impacted the whole country. During this time most anti-slavery supporters were peaceful and only tried to fight slavery “morally”, however John Brown lead many anti slavery raids his most famous and the one which he would have to pay with his life being, the Harpers Ferry Raid. The seizing of federal armory and arsenal with a group of men with just a mere hope of the local slave population helping him in order to reach success and create a nation wide effect failed miserably when the slavery population frightened did not join his raid. Captured, John Brown delivered one of the most enticing and alluring speech during his trial, his last speech, his address to the court in which he admits his actions in his “crusade” to fight slavery as well as patronizingly accepts his punishment without regret or remorse. In his speech he address one objection, being that if he was fighting on behalf of the rich, high class and those who supported and benefited from the tyrant slavery system,he would have been rewarded and praised instead of punished, proving that once again the tyrant, oppresing, racist and discriminating federal government was being run by bias men who aimed to keep the inhuman hierarchy

This book notes the fears of people who believed in a great slave uprising conspiracy and how they came into being. Slave Country was good at pointing out the formation of the three dominant slave states and their ideology on slavery being both morally just and crucial to the economy. I believe, Rothman set out to explain why slavery expanded under the control of members of the revolutionary generation, and why it expanded particularly into the regions of the Louisiana Purchase.

John Brown killed innocent people who didn’t own slaves. Mahala Doyle stated in a letter from document E,”When you and I entered my house at midnight and arrested my husband and two boys and took them out of the yard and in cold blood shot them dead in my hearing, you can’ say you did I to free our slaves as we had none”(Doyle 11). This shows how John Brown is a villain because he killed an innocent woman’s husband and son for no reason. This family had no slaves and were more on the abolitionist side than not.

The Sectionalist views of slavery had strengthened the divide between Northern Democrats, Southern Democrats, and Republicans as John Brown became a revered figure for Republicans the American abolition movement. Southerners, particularly Southern Democrats, saw Brown as treasonous, meaning that Brown acted against his country in an extremely militant manner. In fact, Abraham Lincoln rejected any connection to John Brown’s raid, despite being anti-slavery. Fire-eaters in particular decided to politicize John Brown’s raid and demonized the abolitionists, but this demonization is reminiscent of Donald Trump’s administration and opponents of anti-fascism demonizing ANTIFA and the “Alt-Left” as treasonous. Meanwhile, John was recognized and defended by Republicans Northern abolitionists as he appeared in numerous political cartoons and newspaper articles.

In “A Behavioral Analysis of John Brown: Martyr or Terrorist,” James N. Gilbert effectively argues that John Brown’s inhumane actions clearly conform to a modern definition of a domestic terrorist. Gilbert argues that Brown justified his inhumane actions by proclaiming adherence to high political and moral values. Gilbert is a professor and former chair of the department of criminal justice at the University of Nebraska-Kearney who specializes in criminal investigative theory. In fact, Gilbert authored Criminal Investigation, which is now it its eighth edition, as well as numerous journal articles. According to Gilbert, Brown lived during a time when both the political process and democratic values had been destroyed by slavery. Gilbert offers insight throughout his argument regarding Brown’s controversial actions as Brown was unalterably opposed to slavery. Overall, in his analysis, Gilbert successfully proves that Brown’s inhumane actions relate to a modern definition of a terrorist as Brown believed that terror and violence were the only ways to abolish slavery.

The Civil War was a time full of many sad and terrible things. One of the most terrible things was slavery. Slavery was a big issue during the time. It was something many people argued about and the abolishing of it even became the goal of the Civil War. People who opposed slavery, abolitionists, fought and spoke out against slavery throughout the country. Some were more successful than others. I believe wasn’t successful as other abolitionist during his time because he was too quick to anger, he was probably insane; and he was financially irresponsible.

One of the many activists during the anti-slavery movement was John Brown. Brown was mostly known for his violent acts towards those who supported slavery, committing raids and spilling blood; this was unlike many other abolitionists who helped slaves escape or made speeches and writings to spread the idea of anti-slavery. Brown was committed to his beliefs and ensured to form an army that would aid him. Brown “began to exact what he saw as justice. Brown and his men believed they were doing God's will, and they justified their violence as an ‘eye for an eye’” (Robinson). By creating this

“John Brown (May 9, 1800 – December 2, 1859) was a radical abolitionist from the United States, who advocated and practiced armed insurrection as a means to abolish slavery for good. He led the Pottawatomie Massacre in 1856 in Bleeding Kansas and made his name in the unsuccessful raid at Harpers Ferry in 1859. He was tried and executed for treason against the

John Brown in my opinion was a freedom fighter, he worked hard for what he wanted and tried his best to succeed no matter what it took. He did do some things in life that he was not proud of but everyone makes mistakes in life, what he did cannot be replaced because we cannot replace innocent lives that were taken. John Brown as a child was against slavery and everything that involves with slavery. My personal definition of terrorism is a group of people that harm others to get something they want. Therefore I do not believe this is John Brown, here are some reasons why. As I said before as a child John was against slavery, he went through many experiences with slaves that made his think this way. As a child John had to watch a slave get beaten, he did not know what to do or think.

In his book Racial Matters, Kenneth O’Reilly presented the facts as he sees them, with little interpretation. He delivered a sharp historical account of the unconstitutional methods the Federal Bureau of Investigation used to weaken and destroy what it labeled to be subversive groups in defense of its ideal of America. O’Reilly saw the role J. Edgar Hoover played to be essential to the manner in which the FBI illegally refused to protect Black lives and persecute Black organizations during the civil rights movement. The events described in Racial Matters, could be prevented in the future, if people became more aware of the involvement their own government had in the systematic destruction of the

John Brown, an abolistionist who previously murdered five proslavery men in 1856, seized a federal arsenal in Harper's Ferry, Virginia. His plan was to start a slave uprising, however it failed and he was caught, he was hanged for treason. Document 7 states that both sides, North and South, were both basically surprised; however some Northerners "began to call Brown a martyr for the sacred cause of freedom." Southerners were outraged that such a man would do this, and mobs would even assault people who held or were suspected of holding antislavery opinions. It also scared Southerners (especially those who held slaves) because they were afraid of slave uprisings. This was one step to the Union

Most of Brown’s reputation was based off of the Pottawatomie Massacre. It was an event led by John Brown that is usually described as “cold

Mass incarceration is defined as the substantial increase in the number of Americans, particularly men of color, imprisoned within the last forty years. Despite its intentions to serve justice, the system is flawed; the physical freedom, possessions, and educational/career opportunities for inmates are limited during and after imprisonment. Lockeian ideology provides insight into how our criminal justice system has come to operate in this way. In John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government, Locke outlines two different types of slavery: justified and unjustified. His definition of justified slavery, which is critical to this paper, states that if a lawful conqueror is defending his or herself against an aggressor and wins, he or she has a

In 1920, Oscar Micheaux directed the silent film Within Our Gates which conducts an in-depth examination of race relations and discrimination within the United States. One of the outcomes of the film is a blatant failure of justice resulting in the lynching of an African American couple, The Landrys. Seemingly, time has not altered the inherent absence of justice concerning the treatment of Black men and women in situations where criminal activity is suspected, legitimately or otherwise. Evidence is found with the killings of Eric Garner, Michael Brown, Tamir Rice, and many other Black victims who died at the hands of police who are tasked with upholding justice and fail to do so. However, what was the popular sentiment toward failure within the legal system between 1920 and 2015? While not representative of this entire time span, in 1962, Robert Mulligan’s film To Kill a Mockingbird focuses on race relations and an African American male wrongly accused of rape who is ultimately killed in a suspicious police shooting. Within Our Gates and To Kill a Mockingbird each offer a presentation of a gross miscarriage of justice that is obvious to the omniscient viewer, but the reaction the films garner from the audience varies from outrage to resignation due to the implementation (or lack thereof) of a visual stimuli, telling of the time period in which the films were produced.

turned violent, with bloody episodes like antislavery partisan John Brown’s organized massacre of proslavery forces in