APUSH Journal #4: John Brown: Freedom-Fighter or Terrorist?

It seems for every debate we have involving violence, I surprise myself and say it’s justified. I believe John Brown is a heroic freedom-fighter, rather than a murdering terrorist, because I appreciate his struggle to help others. Although I disapprove of the way he killed those people, I unexpectedly believe the act of killing them was warranted. This is mostly because I strongly condemn the institution of slavery, and believe that almost any measures should have been taken to end it, since peaceful, non-violent methods did not work even after trying for so many years. John Brown was fighting for something he believed in, something he was passionate about. Abolitionists had tried so many other different protests, but they all failed to get people’s attention and were unable to make change in the South. In order to end slavery, drastic measures had to be taken, people had to finally act, and he did just that. Many people wrote in abolitionist newspapers to express their views and also helped fugitive slaves escape by hiding them, but more needed to be done. Because cotton, and thus slaves, were so much a part of not just the Southern economy, but also the entire US economy, and the Southern way of life, peaceful protests were no longer realistic. Although John Brown actually failed in creating a slave uprising, he gave up his life trying.

John Brown was also a special abolitionist; unlike most, he thought slavery was wrong and he was not prejudice or racist towards African Americans. He grew up in a mostly black community, was an Underground Railroad conductor, and even adopted fugitive slave orphans as his own children. This fight wasn’t for a cause unknown to him; he was truly fighting for his family, friends, and neighbors. Most people would argue that since he was not ever a slave, nor an African American, he can not be called a freedom-fighter because it was not his own freedom that he was fighting for, but really he was fighting for his own children! He was “standing up for the millions without rights” and without voices; he was fighting for those who could not fight for themselves.

Many people also feel that he was a terrorist, but because he was doing it for a cause I too believe in, I am unable to view him this way. It is unfortunate that people were killed, but slavery is such an obscene and inhumane institution that I actually don’t even feel bad for them (as horrible as that sounds). Millions of African Americans were enslaved against their will, being forced to do huge amounts of physical labor, treated like property, separated from their families, some experiencing extremely harsh punishments, even death- so I don’t feel much pity for the five to seven people John Brown murdered if they believed that treating African Americans that way was okay. Osama Bin Laden, as John Brown was referred to as multiple times during our debate in class, is extremely different, mostly because of his cause. Al-Qaeda’s purpose is to create a pan-Islamic world, killing all non-Muslims- abolitionists just wanted to end slavery, trying first peaceful methods before violence. Yes, John Brown most likely would have continued killing had he gotten the chance, but he didn’t plan on killing all slave-owners, he was just trying to make a point, and we can not forget that violence broke out in “Bleeding Kansas” before this occurred.

It was very surprising to me how little of the class believed what he did was good- I expected it to be more equally split. Killing people, especially in the gruesome way John Brown did, is wrong, but I don’t think enough people were really looking at why he did it. Even people who believed slaves had the right to kill, thought John Brown didn’t, which I thought was really very strange, because it’s almost the same thing. John Brown died for his cause, for his children, for every slave, and for that I believe what he did was noble rather than cruel, wrong, or too extreme.