Was John Brown a Traitor? (Poll)

Was John Brown a Traitor?

  • Yes

    Votes: 60 61.2%
  • No

    Votes: 35 35.7%
  • Don't Know

    Votes: 3 3.1%

  • Total voters
    98
No. Otherwise killing an FBI agent in the commission of a crime or killing a soldier while robbing him could be called an act of war.
That wouldn't be killing someone in the course of trying to create an armed uprising, of which there seemed to be evidence was Browns plan, the killings would have took it past just a planned uprising.........
 
That wouldn't be killing someone in the course of trying to create an armed uprising, of which there seemed to be evidence was Browns plan, the killings would have took it past just a planned uprising.........

Which armed uprising, against whom?
 
1. I'm curious what exactly were Brown and other free soilers supposed to do with men that they reasonably beleive were going to try to kill them and their families if they didn't leave their homes.

it was Brown killed men who were planning on killing him and others and to drive free soilers off their land...

1. Brown "reasonably believed they were going to kill him? He had no proof they were going to kill him, he just "reasonably" believed they were?

2. Were they planning on killing Brown or did Brown just "reasonably" believe they were?


So if I "reasonably" believed my neighbor was going to kill me because I would not move, I could shoot them as they left their house, and all would be legal, and morally right?

Perhaps, Booth "reasonably" believed that Abraham Lincoln was going to kill him, so Booth struck first?

Respectfully,
William
John Brown - 1.jpg
 
In-between reading everything else (including the Chernow brick) I have also been reading John Brown, by W.E.B. Du Bois. I found this statement that Brown had to say on the matter of his conviction of Treason against Virginia:

"In the first place, I deny everything but what I have all along admitted, -- the design on my part to free the slaves. I intended certainly to have made a clean thing of that matter, as I did last winter, when i went into Missouri and there took slaves without the snapping of a gun on either side, moved them through the country and finally left them in Canada. I designed to have done the same thing again , on a larger scale. That was all I intended. I never did intend murder, or treason, or the destruction of property, or to excite, or to incite slaves to rebellion, or to make insurrection" W.E.B. Du Bois, John Brown, [p216]
 
In-between reading everything else (including the Chernow brick) I have also been reading John Brown, by W.E.B. Du Bois. I found this statement that Brown had to say on the matter of his conviction of Treason against Virginia:

"In the first place, I deny everything but what I have all along admitted, -- the design on my part to free the slaves. I intended certainly to have made a clean thing of that matter, as I did last winter, when i went into Missouri and there took slaves without the snapping of a gun on either side, moved them through the country and finally left them in Canada. I designed to have done the same thing again , on a larger scale. That was all I intended. I never did intend murder, or treason, or the destruction of property, or to excite, or to incite slaves to rebellion, or to make insurrection" W.E.B. Du Bois, John Brown, [p216]



"when i went into Missouri and there took slaves without the snapping of a gun on either side, moved them through the country and finally left them in Canada. I designed to have done the same thing again , on a larger scale"

Then why attack a United States Facility? There were no slaves at the arsenal to get to take to Canada. Why not go from farm to farm snatching up slaves? What did he need weapons for? Why have a provisional Constitution?

"I never did intend murder, or treason, or the destruction of property, or to excite, or to incite slaves to rebellion, or to make insurrection"

It matters little as to what he "intended", it matters a great deal as to what happened. Brown is responsible for what happens.

The only thing good I can say about Brown is that he hated slavery and felt it needed to end. That opinion, though right and moral, does not give him the right to commit the acts he did. I think he was insane, just my opinion and does not mean he was. He was a murderer, kidnapper, thief, and a gosh darn good liar.............IMO.


Bee, strange thing is, I was looking over that same book last night !!


Respectfully,
William
Jeb Stuart - 2.jpg
 
I suppose it depends on what one considers to be a rebellion against the laws of the United States. Defying the federal law against interstate flight to avoid prosecution might be construed by some to be a rebellion against the laws of the United States. Others would consider it simply a crime, like John Brown's crime of attempted theft.

The obvious difference is that Brown led an assault against a U.S. arsenal, resulting in the deaths of both civilians and servicemen, with the intention of stealing arms to be dispensed for use in an uprising against the authority of the laws of the United States. It is a rebellion against the authority of the law, not simply someone violating the law. That seems to be pretty clearly treason.
 
Last edited:
The obvious difference is that Brown led an assault against a U.S. arsenal, resulting in the deaths of both civilians and servicemen, with the intention of stealing arms to be dispensed for use in an uprising against the authority of the laws of the United States. It is a rebellion against the authority of the law, not simply someone violating the law. Hence, it is without a doubt, treason.

No, in fact it is not. It does not meet the definition of levying war against the United States.
 
Wouldn't the use of the captured arms to kill US citizens and US marines constitute the act of war

If a soldier steals weapons from his base then uses them on a killing spree in the nearby town does that mean he's committing an act of war? What if a civilian who works at the same base does the same thing?

If Brown's Raid had gone down exactly as it did, but instead of USMC storming his hideout it was a SWAT team (pretend one existed in 1859) is it still an act of war?

with the intention of stealing arms to be dispensed for use in an uprising against the authority of the laws of the United States. It is a rebellion against the authority of the law, not simply someone violating the law.

Rebellion us not necessarily treason.

The Confederacy committed rebellion by seceding. The committed treason by firing on Fort Sumter then seizing and holding it indefinitely.
 
If a soldier steals weapons from his base then uses them on a killing spree in the nearby town does that mean he's committing an act of war? What if a civilian who works at the same base does the same thing?

If Brown's Raid had gone down exactly as it did, but instead of USMC storming his hideout it was a SWAT team (pretend one existed in 1859) is it still an act of war?



Rebellion us not necessarily treason.

The Confederacy committed rebellion by seceding. The committed treason by firing on Fort Sumter then seizing and holding it indefinitely.
I agree and already had stated an attack on a US flagged installation is an act of war, which seizing then holding the armory was, and as you say Fort Sumter was, And conspiracy to start an uprising against US citizens and US laws would also would be IMO. you can argue the semantics all you want, but the fact is he was convicted of treason and hung for treason, that you don't like it, doesn't negate the ruling in any way.............

If really want to do semantics..........I'll go with someone convicted of treason is by definition a traitor.......which is what Brown was..............

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/traitor

Notice #2
 
Last edited:
No, in fact it is not. It does not meet the definition of levying war against the United States.

May I then ask you a quick question?

For hypothetical purposes, let's say that the Nullification Crisis of 1832-33 had failed to be resolved and the South Carolina Legislature had refused to back down resulting in the U.S. government utilizing military forces to ensure that the law was faithfully executed. Now, let's say that men serving in local militia forces, who in response to the call of the State to resist the authority of the U.S. government, despite not being in State service directly, volunteered their services and seized Federal facilities so as to commandeer the property for use in the effort to subvert to the laws. When confronted, they attacked and killed U.S. servicemen. Would these men have been committing treason?
 
Last edited:
If a soldier steals weapons from his base then uses them on a killing spree in the nearby town does that mean he's committing an act of war? What if a civilian who works at the same base does the same thing?

If Brown's Raid had gone down exactly as it did, but instead of USMC storming his hideout it was a SWAT team (pretend one existed in 1859) is it still an act of war?



Rebellion us not necessarily treason.

The Confederacy committed rebellion by seceding. The committed treason by firing on Fort Sumter then seizing and holding it indefinitely.

We are not dealing with someone who simply stole government property here. John Brown orchestrated a raid on a U.S. arsenal with the purpose of seizing arms, munitions and other supplies to be used in an armed insurrection against the laws and authority of the United States, as laid out in our Constitution. The intention was not to go on a maniacal killing spree, or something like that. The intention was to induce and supply an insurrection in order to usurp Federal law and overthrow the enforcement of powers clearly detailed in the U.S. Constitution.
 
I don't think Brown's actions necessarily constitute "treason" as he was seeking to foment a slave uprising rather than act, conspire, or seek to overthrow the government of the United States. Instead, I would label him a homegrown terrorist.

There are so many definitions of terrorism that now, almost any condemnable act is seen as terrorist. But Wiki says: Terrorism is, in the broadest sense, the use of intentionally indiscriminate violence as a means to create terror, or fear, to achieve a political, religious or ideological aim.

I don't think Brown's idea was to create terror. He wanted to lead a slave rebellion. Slave rebellions are terrifying, but I don't see them as being terrorism.

- Alan
 
There are so many definitions of terrorism that now, almost any condemnable act is seen as terrorist. But Wiki says: Terrorism is, in the broadest sense, the use of intentionally indiscriminate violence as a means to create terror, or fear, to achieve a political, religious or ideological aim.

I don't think Brown's idea was to create terror. He wanted to lead a slave rebellion. Slave rebellions are terrifying, but I don't see them as being terrorism.

- Alan

The way the word "terrorist" is bandied and applied today would most certainly apply to some of the nuns I had during Catholic grade school in the late 50's and early 60's.
 
May I then ask you a quick question?

For hypothetical purposes, let's say that the Nullification Crisis of 1832-33 had failed to be resolved and the South Carolina Legislature had refused to back down resulting in the U.S. government utilizing military forces to ensure that the law was faithfully executed. Now, let's say that men serving in local militia forces, who in response to the call of the State to resist the authority of the U.S. government, despite not being in State service directly, volunteered their services and seized Federal facilities so as to commandeer the property for use in the effort to subvert to the laws. When confronted, they attacked and killed U.S. servicemen. Would these men have been committing treason?

Yes. But that's not what John Brown did.
 
We are not dealing with someone who simply stole government property here.

Actually, we are.

John Brown orchestrated a raid on a U.S. arsenal with the purpose of seizing arms, munitions and other supplies to be used in an armed insurrection against the laws and authority of the United States, as laid out in our Constitution.

No, he attempted to steal arms in order to provide for freed slaves to defend themselves.
 
Back
Top