John Brown was an abolitionist during the mid-1800s. However, he differed from other abolitionists because he believed that if there was blood to be shed, then one must do everything in their power to make this happen. In other words, violence was something he supported. This allows any intellectual to question whether Brown’s tactics and beliefs are ones to support, as violence was something that was typically looked down upon when attempting to abolish slavery. Thus, this shows that Brown’s point of view was unique and that these differences that he possessed only makes him that much more important.
Inevitably, there were members of society who fully supported the works of John Brown. “Some Yankees professed to admire Brown for daring to strike the slave power that was accustomed to pushing the North around with impunity” (page 210). A few liked his ideas so much as to have created a group that was known as the secret six. Brown came up with a plan to raid the South and was funded by this secret group. Because this group had been formed, this represents how many other members of society were also in support of Brown’s beliefs. This raid also shined light on the idea of the white southerners and their confusion between act and motive. Many republican leaders also feared any political damage, thus rejecting Brown.
From the beginning, even when “Passions ran high in Virginia, where mobs clamored for Brown’s blood” (page 206), Brown never gave into giving up on what he believed in. All in all, Brown wanted a revolution and he, himself, allowed this to happen. He believed in action over discussion, which I, too, support. Although violence may seem to be the wrong direction, as long as action takes place, change will occur. If members of society simply discussed and never acted upon the discussion, it would be considered a waste of time. All talk and no act is something Brown wanted to avoid. Because of this, John Brown became a hero to many people and stuck by his beliefs up until the date of his death.
A thoughtful post—I’m glad to see you grapple a bit with the morality of John Brown’s raid as well as discuss the details as explained by McPherson. To challenge your endorsement of Brown’s approach a little, is it possible to draw a distinction between Brown’s seemingly futile and quixotic act of violence and, say, the violent resistance mounted by enslaved people on the Amistad (an infamous slave ship) or those who resisted being taken back into slavery under the Fugitive Acts? To draw some modern comparisons, would Brown be considered a terrorist by today’s standards? Seemingly lots of groups these days, from a minority of activists associated with the Movement for Black Lives to those who assaulted the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, feel that violence is justified to effect change—how can we distinguish between which causes or beliefs justify violent action, and which do not?
More importantly for the purposes of this post, what does McPherson say, or suggest, was the significance of Brown’s raid? If it ended in failure, yet stirred up emotions and tensions in both the North and South, how does he describe its role in bringing about the Civil War?