Restricted Debate John Brown vs John Wilkes Booth

lurid

Corporal
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
Messages
410
#1
People back then believed in the "higher law" theory, which meant they were inclined to follow the dictates of the higher law—moral or religious principle—rather than human law. Brown and Booth both appealed to a higher cause to justify taking up arms against what they viewed as a great social evil. According to the laws of the land, both men were broke the law and were deemed as criminals, however, from a religious and moral perspective one can be depicted as a freedom fighter and one as a terrorist. I personally don't like organized religion because it is dysfunctional and hypocritical and nobody on this board can interpret the scriptures accurately anyway, so from a humanitarian and an altruistic standpoint, I would have to say that John Brown was definitely a freedom fighter and John Wilkes Booth was a terrorist, and I might add JWB was murderous terrorist.
 

Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

archieclement

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Messages
4,087
Location
mo
#2
They are the same. if you excuse one, you've set the precedent/standard of excusing the other. If one can simply do whatever they believe......they better be prepared for people who you may not believe in will be doing the same.

Another good example is if one wishes to excuse those ignoring FSL in 1850's because they didnt agree with the law, they should realize people ignoring the civil rights laws in the 1870's because they didnt beleive in them, is the same. Laws aren't a pick and choose just the ones you like........
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
7,169
Location
Central Florida
#3
Here:

Before the U.S. Civil War, African Americans were legally denied equal rights and freedoms pursuant to formally valid codes prescribing the relations between master and slave. Although these codes were de jure fully suitable for application in legal practice, their enforcement by the then U.S. government de facto violated basic human rights of a significant part of the population. William H. Seward famously proclaimed that slavery is forbidden under "a higher law than the Constitution".

I think John Brown actions may fall under the higher law... The question where does murder fall under Higher Law... John Brown murder a few people...

These leaders argue that, as a necessary corollary to the axiom that "no one is above the law," the rule of law requires the government to treat all persons equally under the law. However, the proclaimed right to equal treatment is susceptible to instantly becoming void each time the government denies a sufficient level of respect, dignity, and autonomy to a certain class of individuals or to human rights in general."

Therefore, the unwritten and universally self-explanatory principles of equality, autonomy, dignity, and respect are said to overrule conventional written laws enacted by the government. It is these principles that are often referred to as "natural law". They also constitute the basis of the "higher law theory".

John Wilks Booth followed natural law defending his people and principles...
 

archieclement

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Messages
4,087
Location
mo
#4
Here:

Before the U.S. Civil War, African Americans were legally denied equal rights and freedoms pursuant to formally valid codes prescribing the relations between master and slave. Although these codes were de jure fully suitable for application in legal practice, their enforcement by the then U.S. government de facto violated basic human rights of a significant part of the population. William H. Seward famously proclaimed that slavery is forbidden under "a higher law than the Constitution".

I think John Brown actions may fall under the higher law... The question where does murder fall under Higher Law... John Brown murder a few people...

These leaders argue that, as a necessary corollary to the axiom that "no one is above the law," the rule of law requires the government to treat all persons equally under the law. However, the proclaimed right to equal treatment is susceptible to instantly becoming void each time the government denies a sufficient level of respect, dignity, and autonomy to a certain class of individuals or to human rights in general."

Therefore, the unwritten and universally self-explanatory principles of equality, autonomy, dignity, and respect are said to overrule conventional written laws enacted by the government. It is these principles that are often referred to as "natural law". They also constitute the basis of the "higher law theory".

John Wilks Booth followed natural law defending his people and principles...
LOL higher law? By whose religion? Is every sect or cult going to have its own higher law excuse? Just curious would say the Ghost dance fall under higher law. Where Sharia law differs from US law, would Sharia be the higher law?

Where does "higher law" fall in relation to separation of church and state.......would seem no religion would be recognized as higher law

What if your neighbors dog is talking to you and instructing you as in david berkowitz? Never had a dog talk to me....but if one did, guess can see where one could construe it as coming from something higher.

The "higher law" would seem to be the one that hung Brown and the Booth conspirators
 
Last edited:
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
16,719
Location
los angeles ca
#5
People back then believed in the "higher law" theory, which meant they were inclined to follow the dictates of the higher law—moral or religious principle—rather than human law. Brown and Booth both appealed to a higher cause to justify taking up arms against what they viewed as a great social evil. According to the laws of the land, both men were broke the law and were deemed as criminals, however, from a religious and moral perspective one can be depicted as a freedom fighter and one as a terrorist. I personally don't like organized religion because it is dysfunctional and hypocritical and nobody on this board can interpret the scriptures accurately anyway, so from a humanitarian and an altruistic standpoint, I would have to say that John Brown was definitely a freedom fighter and John Wilkes Booth was a terrorist, and I might add JWB was murderous terrorist.
The old Irish chestnut " one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" is always true. Terrorist is a pejorative word for those people we don't like. Who gets punished and who gets condoned depends on various factors.
Men once labeled as terrorists have won Noble Peace Prize's. In at least one example a terrorist who killed far more people the John Brown (Orlando Bosch) received a presidential pardon.
Leftyhunter
 
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
16,719
Location
los angeles ca
#6
People back then believed in the "higher law" theory, which meant they were inclined to follow the dictates of the higher law—moral or religious principle—rather than human law. Brown and Booth both appealed to a higher cause to justify taking up arms against what they viewed as a great social evil. According to the laws of the land, both men were broke the law and were deemed as criminals, however, from a religious and moral perspective one can be depicted as a freedom fighter and one as a terrorist. I personally don't like organized religion because it is dysfunctional and hypocritical and nobody on this board can interpret the scriptures accurately anyway, so from a humanitarian and an altruistic standpoint, I would have to say that John Brown was definitely a freedom fighter and John Wilkes Booth was a terrorist, and I might add JWB was murderous terrorist.
Of course us one is a slave being liberated by John Brown and company which occurred at least once in Missouri then one might care less about John Brown being a " terrorist".
Leftyhunter
 

archieclement

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Messages
4,087
Location
mo
#7
Whether one cares or not has little to do with what one is.

James/Youngers were folk heroes. Doubt many of their supporters would have argued they weren't outlaws, they didn't care because they were seen sticking it to Yankees, who were liked even less
 

lurid

Corporal
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
Messages
410
#8
The old Irish chestnut " one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" is always true. Terrorist is a pejorative word for those people we don't like. Who gets punished and who gets condoned depends on various factors.
Men once labeled as terrorists have won Noble Peace Prize's. In at least one example a terrorist who killed far more people the John Brown (Orlando Bosch) received a presidential pardon.
Leftyhunter
That's my point in this thread. I specifically said that both were deemed as criminals in the eyes of law, and I also said that organized religion is utterly worthless to use instrumentally in the causation and reward of both men's actions. Therefore, I was wondering from a humanitarian and altruist premise, which I believe John Brown's actions were self-sacrificing and JWB's were self-serving.
 

archieclement

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Messages
4,087
Location
mo
#11
Not sure your point.......any legal standard has to be consistent.

If your advocating it's OK to excuse someone's actions because you think they beleived they were right.........it would have to apply to anyone extra legally doing "what they believe right" Anything else would simply be hypocritical nonsense.

And as prisons are full of people who claim they did nothing.......imagine most would make a claim to "rightness" as well
 
Joined
Jun 8, 2013
Messages
6,853
Location
Nebraska
#12
Therefore, I was wondering from a humanitarian and altruist premise, which I believe John Brown's actions were self-sacrificing and JWB's were self-serving.
Brown could not be considered self-sacrificing because he didn't intend to die at Harper's Ferry and had elaborate plans on how to continue after seizing the arsenal.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
7,169
Location
Central Florida
#13
Martin Luther King Jr. once said, “Let us realize the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”

Maybe the question is not Higher law or Natural Law but a moral universe that bends towards justice... maybe justice is the universal truth... Maybe John Brown and John Wilkes Booth were just criminals ... In their own ways, along with the nation woes helped bend the moral courage of our nation toward justice...
 

archieclement

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Messages
4,087
Location
mo
#14
Martin Luther King Jr. once said, “Let us realize the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”

Maybe the question is not Higher law or Natural Law but a moral universe that bends towards justice... maybe justice is the universal truth... Maybe John Brown and John Wilkes Booth were just criminals ... In their own ways, along with the nation woes helped bend the moral courage of our nation toward justice...
Good luck with separating morality from religion.
 

byron ed

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Messages
2,559
Location
Midwest
#16
James/Youngers were folk heroes. Doubt many of their supporters would have argued they weren't outlaws, they didn't care because they were seen sticking it to Yankees, who were liked even less
There weren't enough Nor'easters in that part of the Country that any general statement can be made about whether they were generally liked or disliked there.
 
Last edited:

byron ed

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Messages
2,559
Location
Midwest
#17
imho the premise of the OP doesn't quite jive. The first time JWB had even laid eyes on JB was when the latter was swinging by the neck on a rope -- what "vs" was there in that?

Anyway they had much more in common than they did in opposition: Both had puffed egos, both were driven by their legacy, neither was enlisted in any country's army, both were manipulators that preyed on the weak-minded, both endangered their own families without a second thought, both became cold-blooded killers of unarmed defenseless people, and both excused and justified that crime behind a public cause.
 
Last edited:

lurid

Corporal
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
Messages
410
#18
Not sure your point.......any legal standard has to be consistent.

If your advocating it's OK to excuse someone's actions because you think they beleived they were right.........it would have to apply to anyone extra legally doing "what they believe right" Anything else would simply be hypocritical nonsense.
I'm not talking about the law or some bogus religious view, I specifically stated that in my opening post. I'm talking purely from a humanitarian perspective. It is possible to separate humanitarianism from law or from religion, is it not?
 

lurid

Corporal
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
Messages
410
#19
They were both insane. You can't justify their actions for any agenda or cause. Killing people in self defense in a war is terrible, but for a principle is just plain insane.
I'm not justifying anything. I'm trying to figure out the distinctions between the two and it appears John Brown was slightly more tolerable.
 



Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Top