Was John Brown a Traitor? (Poll)

Was John Brown a Traitor?

  • Yes

    Votes: 59 61.5%
  • No

    Votes: 35 36.5%
  • Don't Know

    Votes: 2 2.1%

  • Total voters
    96

Nytram01

First Sergeant
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Location
Portsmouth, Hampshire, England
I dont know why you keep asking this question Gem. It's black and white. A man who takes up arms against his own country with the intention of sparking a widespread insurrection, regardless of the reasons behind his action, is guilty of treason. There is no doubt about it whatsoever.
 

JerseyBart

Brigadier General
Moderator
Forum Host
Joined
Jul 19, 2006
Location
New Jersey
I dont know why you keep asking this question Gem. It's black and white. A man who takes up arms against his own country with the intention of sparking a widespread insurrection, regardless of the reasons behind his action, is guilty of treason. There is no doubt about it whatsoever.
But let's see who votes yes to brown and no to lee and vice versa.
 

RobertP

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Nov 11, 2009
Location
Dallas
I'm thinking of a "Was Grant a Drunk" poll and see how well the no responses correlate to the positive ones on Lee as a traitor. Over/Under at 90%
 

Nytram01

First Sergeant
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Location
Portsmouth, Hampshire, England
But let's see who votes yes to brown and no to lee and vice versa.

And I have voted yes to both. I am, as I said in the other thread, more sympathetic to Lee, because his treason was a reactionary kind where he had to choose where his loyatlies lay in a moment of crisis, whereas Brown's was a deliberate sort where he sought to initiate his treasonous activities. In essence, Brown deliberately set out to commit treason, Lee chose to commit treason due the circumstances he faced, both made the concious decision to commit treason but Brown intended to do so from the start whereas Lee's first reaction was to remain loyal to the Union but Virginia's secession changed his circumstances.
 

JerseyBart

Brigadier General
Moderator
Forum Host
Joined
Jul 19, 2006
Location
New Jersey
And I have voted yes to both. I am, as I said in the other thread, more sympathetic to Lee, because his treason was a reactionary kind where he had to choose where his loyatlies lay in a moment of crisis, whereas Brown's was a deliberate sort where he sought to initiate his treasonous activities. In essence, Brown deliberately set out to commit treason, Lee chose to commit treason due the circumstances he faced, both made the concious decision to commit treason but Brown intended to do so from the start whereas Lee's first reaction was to remain loyal to the Union but Virginia's secession changed his circumstances.
I voted yes to both as well.
 
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Location
Pacific Northwest
I'm glad you pointed that out as it brings up an interesting question: How was Virginia able to bring the treason charge in the first place for an attack on a federal facility?

"The defense claimed that the Harpers Ferry Federal Armory was not on Virginia property, but since the murdered townspeople had died in the streets outside the perimeter of the Federal facility, this carried little weight with the jury. John Brown’s lack of official citizenship in Virginia was presented as a defense against treason against the State. The judge dispatched this claim by reference to “rights and responsibilities” and the overlapping citizenship requirements between the Federal union and the various states. John Brown, as a U.S. citizen, could be found guilty of treason against Virginia on the basis of his temporary residence there during the days of the insurrection..."
 

Nytram01

First Sergeant
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Location
Portsmouth, Hampshire, England
To a state that he was never a citizen of :O o:

I've always thought he should have been tried by a Federal court since his crime was to attack and seize Federal property and to open fire on Federal troops. The civilian casualties he caused were, really, just caught in the cross-fire. Why did the Federal government simply relieve itself of its responsibility and leave Virginia to handle things? Could not he have been tried for his crimes against Virginia as well as his crimes against the United States?
 

wilber6150

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Location
deep in the Mohawk Valley of Central New York
I'm glad you pointed that out as it brings up an interesting question: How was Virginia able to bring the treason charge in the first place for an attack on a federal facility?
Not being an expert on the case itself, but I'm guess they could have used the attack at the railway yard or fighting with the townspeople and holding some hostage, if I recall correctly..
 

wilber6150

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Location
deep in the Mohawk Valley of Central New York
I've always thought he should have been tried by a Federal court since his crime was to attack and seize Federal property and to open fire on Federal troops. The civilian casualties he caused were, really, just caught in the cross-fire. Why did the Federal government simply relieve itself of its responsibility and leave Virginia to handle things? Could not he have been tried for his crimes against Virginia as well as his crimes against the United States?
Or the federal government might have just given him up to placate the Southern rage over the incident...
 
Top