How Should John Brown be Remembered?

How Should John Brown be Remembered?


  • Total voters
    67
Sometimes one needs the benefit of hindsight to realize that someone was right.

For example, Galelio was viewed as a heretic for recognizing the Sun not Earth is the center of universe.

Sometimes views that are seen as fanatical end up being right.

That's just the way it is.
 
People who are ahead of their time often get chastised by others in their day.

That should not change the way we remember them.

Sometimes one needs the benefit of hindsight to realize that someone was right.

For example, Galelio was viewed as a heretic for recognizing the Sun not Earth is the center of universe.

Sometimes views that are seen as fanatical end up being right.

That's just the way it is.

There were tens of thousands of Americans who believed slavery was wrong, and who actively worked against it, without committing or inciting murder. John Brown did more to hurt their cause than to help it, and has stained their good name to this very day.
 
Sometimes one needs the benefit of hindsight to realize that someone was right.

For example, Galelio was viewed as a heretic for recognizing the Sun not Earth is the center of universe.

Sometimes views that are seen as fanatical end up being right.

That's just the way it is.

Yeah, but Galelio didn't chop people to pieces, try to lead a slave revolt against innocent civilians, or never feel remorse for the crimes he committed.
 
True enough. Even today, if the responses in the thread are indicative, he is eulogized and revered. It's interesting the rogues who are embraced and those who are vilified.
There you go again, inventing bugbears, goblins and trolls that no one else sees.

This thread has turned to the Pottawattame "massacre" and the justification or lack thereof for the action. That isn't the equivalent of eulogizing or revering him.
 
There you go again, inventing bugbears, goblins and trolls that no one else sees.

This thread has turned to the Pottawattame "massacre" and the justification or lack thereof for the action. That isn't the equivalent of eulogizing or revering him.

Hmmm. Just 21 minutes ago someone on this thread compared him favorably to Galileo.
 
Favorably?

Yes:

Sometimes one needs the benefit of hindsight to realize that someone was right.

For example, Galelio was viewed as a heretic for recognizing the Sun not Earth is the center of universe.

Sometimes views that are seen as fanatical end up being right.

That's just the way it is.
 
There you go again, inventing bugbears, goblins and trolls that no one else sees.

This thread has turned to the Pottawattame "massacre" and the justification or lack thereof for the action. That isn't the equivalent of eulogizing or revering him.

Really? I see folks not quite deifying John Brown, giving him every benefit of the doubt and then some. Elevating his brutal and cold blooded murder of unarmed men in front of their kin by hacking them to death as some sort of noble act of liberation and preemptive self defense. I'm sorry, I just don't see it.

Was Kansas lawless? Yes. Were atrocities committed by both factions? Yes. Should this be used as an excuse for Brown's murders? No, I'm afraid it shouldn't.
 
You have a strange interpretation of "favorable." There was no comparison with Galileo; just an analogy stating that sometimes, people are right but it takes a long time to recognize it.

I don't agree with the sentiment, but that's no reason to attack the messenger.
 
Really? I see folks not quite deifying John Brown, giving him every benefit of the doubt and then some. Elevating his brutal and cold blooded murder of unarmed men in front of their kin by hacking them to death as some sort of noble act of liberation and preemptive self defense. I'm sorry, I just don't see it.

Was Kansas lawless? Yes. Were atrocities committed by both factions? Yes. Should this be used as an excuse for Brown's murders? No, I'm afraid it shouldn't.
That's not what you said. You said "eulogized and revered" -- a gross overstatement.

John Brown's heart was in the right place; his methods left a lot to be desired. That you have a different opinion is the heart and soul of this board, but let's leave the hyperbole out of the discussion.
 
That's not what you said. You said "eulogized and revered" -- a gross overstatement.

LOL. You object to eulogize and revered but then let deify slide? Interesting. I'm sorry, Ole, but I stand by my comments. There was no hyperbole. There are folks here who seek to excuse, justify, explain away etc. ad nauseam Brown's actions for the very reason you cite: his heart is deemed to be in the right place.

John Brown's heart was in the right place; his methods left a lot to be desired.

As I said earlier, he believed the end justified the means which has been the ideology of tyrants and murderers throughout the ages.
 
You have a strange interpretation of "favorable." There was no comparison with Galileo; just an analogy stating that sometimes, people are right but it takes a long time to recognize it.

And what was John Brown "right" about? Believing that slavery was wrong? Hundreds of thousands of Americans believed slavery was wrong in 1859. Tens of thousands of them were actively working against it. Several thousand of them were putting their own freedom and fortunes on the line in their fight against it every day.

Galileo was unique, one of literally a handful of people in his time who believed as he did. The only thing that made John Brown unique is that he believed he was justified in murdering people and attacking federal installations, something I'm pretty sure Galileo never did.

I don't agree with the sentiment, but that's no reason to attack the messenger.

There was no attacking of anybody. Someone compared John Brown to Galileo, and I pointed it out. If it was a bad comparison, the fault lies with the person who made it, not the "messenger" who pointed it out.
 
And what was John Brown "right" about? Believing that slavery was wrong? Hundreds of thousands of Americans believed slavery was wrong in 1859. Tens of thousands of them were actively working against it. Several thousand of them were putting their own freedom and fortunes on the line in their fight against it every day.

Galileo was unique, one of literally a handful of people in his time who believed as he did. The only thing that made John Brown unique is that he believed he was justified in murdering people and attacking federal installations, something I'm pretty sure Galileo never did.



There was no attacking of anybody. Someone compared John Brown to Galileo, and I pointed it out. If it was a bad comparison, the fault lies with the person who made it, not the "messenger" who pointed it out.

Lets not worry about the Galileo - JB connection and move on please.
 
LOL. You object to eulogize and revered but then let deify slide? Interesting. I'm sorry, Ole, but I stand by my comments. There was no hyperbole. There are folks here who seek to excuse, justify, explain away etc. ad nauseam Brown's actions for the very reason you cite: his heart is deemed to be in the right place.



As I said earlier, he believed the end justified the means which has been the ideology of tyrants and murderers throughout the ages.
No more nor less than many others who believed the end justified the means. The same can be said for anyone. Even Lincoln and Davis. I see no reason to get over-excited on Brown.

And there are folks here, who explain away ad nauseam the actions of Ferguson, Quantril, Anderson and others of their ilk. No one's totally wrong in here. To maintain that there is one view on this and another on that is not in keeping with the spirit of this board, and certainly not from the position of moderator.
 
And what was John Brown "right" about? Believing that slavery was wrong? Hundreds of thousands of Americans believed slavery was wrong in 1859. Tens of thousands of them were actively working against it. Several thousand of them were putting their own freedom and fortunes on the line in their fight against it every day.

Galileo was unique, one of literally a handful of people in his time who believed as he did. The only thing that made John Brown unique is that he believed he was justified in murdering people and attacking federal installations, something I'm pretty sure Galileo never did.



There was no attacking of anybody. Someone compared John Brown to Galileo, and I pointed it out. If it was a bad comparison, the fault lies with the person who made it, not the "messenger" who pointed it out.
There was no comparison of Brown to Galileo; only their analagous similarity.

Again, I think Brown was a zealous fruitcake, but if someone wants to defend him, he has a right to present his case without abuse.
 
No more nor less than many others who believed the end justified the means. The same can be said for anyone. Even Lincoln and Davis. I see no reason to get over-excited on Brown.

And there are folks here, who explain away ad nauseam the actions of Ferguson, Quantril, Anderson and others of their ilk. No one's totally wrong in here. To maintain that there is one view on this and another on that is not in keeping with the spirit of this board, and certainly not from the position of moderator.

Oh, I see. Having a view that I believe to be correct on an issue that is controversial makes me unsuited not only to be a moderator but to be on the forum itself? Interesting. I will say this for the record, Ole, I have never moderated anyone based upon whether or not I liked or agreed with their views but solely whether what was posted met the rules. Based upon your comments, I have reported this post so that Mike can determine whether I ought to be removed as a moderator and for that matter the board, because of my views.
 
Oh, I see. Having a view that I believe to be correct on an issue that is controversial makes me unsuited not only to be a moderator but to be on the forum itself? Interesting. I will say this for the record, Ole, I have never moderated anyone based upon whether or not I liked or agreed with their views but solely whether what was posted met the rules. Based upon your comments, I have reported this post so that Mike can determine whether I ought to be removed as a moderator and for that matter the board, because of my views.
There you go again. No one said that you ought not be a moderator. It's just that your view and opinion are not sacrosanct and ought not be wielded as a club.

Meanwhile, you've just dumped on Mike another load that he really doesn't need. Mods are here to handle things so that Mike is not overloaded with BS.
 
People who are ahead of their time often get chastised by others in their day.

That should not change the way we remember them.
But even Frederick Douglas whose eloquent Abolitionist lectures had helped inspire Brown, reportedly tried to talk him out of the ill-conceived Harper's Ferry operation when the two met at Chambersburg, Pa. in late summer 1859. Douglas must have early-on recognized the folly and instability of Brown's plan, because gaining prior knowledge of the secret operation, he also reportedly encouraged freed Black men in the North not to participate in the endeavor fearing it would fail.

During his Cspan 3 lecture on Understanding the Civil War, author Thomas Fleming discussed Brown's logistical incompetence and manic depressive nature. http://www.c-span.org/History/Events/Understanding-the-Civil-War/10737440347/ One of the facts I hadn't known about the raid which Fleming elucidated was that John Brown in his lack of military training had not even considered the most elementary of logistical contingencies with regards to bringing along proper rations for his raiders if they were besieged. Brown did however mange to acquire 198 breech-loading rifles .52 caliber Sharps carbines and 950 pikes which he brought to his farm staging area, only a short distance from the 100,000 modern rifle muskets in the Harper's Ferry armory. If an army travels on it's stomach as Napoleon observed, Brown was sorely out of his depth.
 
As moderator, please keep issues about moderators to PMs not on open threads. Moderator issues are not to be discussed in public.

Please say on topic.


Thank you.
 
Back
Top