Elizabeth TerHaar
12/3/2013 02:11:21 am
It is interesting to consider whether Brown was a hero or a villain.
Reply
Thomas
12/3/2013 02:28:30 am
Clearly a villain. I do not believe violence is ever a good thing, and the ends do not really justify the means. I do believe God could have spoken to him (notice I said could, I do not believe he actually did), but I do not believe in the violent means he used.
Reply
Taylor Slais
12/3/2013 03:24:30 am
Although you do not believe in violence, do you believe in slavery? Is that a pacifist practice? Perhaps Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry, and his violent means therein, was the catalyst for the end of slavery. Would that be justifiable?
Josie Oren
12/3/2013 02:27:26 am
It's really interesting to think that Brown condoned his violence with the fact that he was enforcing God's Message that slavery needed to be eradicated--was that a good enough reason for his attacks?
Reply
Ivy Gibson
12/3/2013 09:04:57 am
No, I don't think that his actions were justified on the basis that God told him to. The immediate parallel I see to this is the number of terrorists today who use their religion to justify what they do. Religion, or, in Brown's case, a message from God, doesn't make it right.
Reply
Emily Claeboe
12/3/2013 02:29:11 am
Was the North and South that incapable of compromising on slavery that people like John Brown had to resort to violence of killing families in cold blood.
Reply
Adam Kimball
12/3/2013 02:29:52 am
The kicker here is that whether you have abolitionist sentiments or proslavery ones. To an abolitionist, he may seem a hero. It's important to note that he was a good person who just did some terrible things for his cause. As long as he doesn't justify his actions on an evil basis, he should be viewed in a heroic light.
Reply
Taylor Slais
12/3/2013 02:30:05 am
I lean more toward the idea that Brown was justified in his actions, because at the core his actions were for a good cause. He may have been overzealous in his actions, yet when all of the violence of the slave owners is considered, his actions are barely consequential. It is the results and reactions to his actions, and not his actions themselves that contributed to the start of the southern fears and the Civil War.
Reply
Emily Claeboe
12/3/2013 11:43:28 pm
The core of his actions might have been for a good cause but it wasn't necessary to go into three cabins and pull every member out to kill them in cold blood. Through his action and the peoples reaction they contributed to the start of the southern fears.
Reply
Reese Bohn
12/3/2013 08:44:29 am
I think that Brown did overstep his boundaries, but could people really fight over a concept so much that would lead a man to become some what insane enough to assault a federal arsenal to equip the slaves with weapons.
Reply
Ivy Gibson
12/3/2013 09:00:01 am
I don't think what John Brown did was right, but I do think he should be presented as a hero. He killed in the name of what he thought was right, a quality to admire. The killing bit was wrong, but he had the right ideas. He was just going about them the wrong way.
Reply
Kishan Patel
12/3/2013 10:10:05 am
He was crazy. He killed people that were against his beliefs. Just because you strongly believe in something doesn't mean you have the right to take a human life to achieve it. Nothing can justify the death of innocent people he was a villian that thought his way was the only way.
Reply
Rachel Sutherland
12/4/2013 12:35:43 am
But what of the innocent slaves that were whipped and tortured by their masters for generations? Can you justify that? Just because the South believed so heavily in using human life for the goal of continuing their way of life, maybe Brown was fighting fire with fire. When the South refuse to let go of their way, Joe Brown had enough reason to think his way was the only way. So maybe he was a hero in that sense.
Reply
Rachel Sutherland
12/3/2013 11:32:36 pm
I believe that Brown and many others thought himself a hero and his message (to end slavery) was heroic, however, Brown was not a hero in his actions but rather a villain. While he encouraged others to free slaves, he encouraged them by trying to give them weapons to fight, he murdered Southern families in cold blood, and his defense was that God told him to do it with no real other substance to back his claim of why he was doing these awful things to others. You have to give credit for taking action against slavery, though. So, he was both a bit of a hero and a villain.
Reply
Josie Oren
12/4/2013 12:51:04 pm
That's a pretty good way of describing him. He's obviously a pretty complicated fellow and probably not entirely sane. He obviously thought that he was doing the right thing, in some twisted, evil way that in no way excuses his behavior. Kind of like the Westboro Baptist Church. They're hate-preaching bigots but use some jacked-up word of God to justify their actions. History does seem to repeat itself!
Reply
Sophia
12/4/2013 02:57:45 am
Was he a hero? Not at all. But, I don't think he was a villain either. Clearly he went about his beliefs the wrong way, and his actions were cruel. But, he was fighting for what he believed.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
APUSH BlogArchives
January 2018
Categories |