Was John Brown a Traitor? (Poll)

Was John Brown a Traitor?

  • Yes

    Votes: 59 60.8%
  • No

    Votes: 35 36.1%
  • Don't Know

    Votes: 3 3.1%

  • Total voters
    97

JerseyBart

Brigadier General
Moderator
Forum Host
Joined
Jul 19, 2006
Location
New Jersey
There was much talk in the North about secession also. William Lloyd Garrison and his followers had slogans "No Union with Slaveholders" and "A Free Northern Republic". Were they also treasonous?
Treasonous talk, yes.
I've been clear all day. It's yes or no to both Brown and Lee.
 

JerseyBart

Brigadier General
Moderator
Forum Host
Joined
Jul 19, 2006
Location
New Jersey
Well, that's your opinion, and you're certainly entitled to it.
My opinion, yes. Common sense as well, I'd say so. Both men are accused of being traitors for taking up arms against their country...but. But some cannot get past their love of Lee to say what he did was treasonous. It's okay. I realize that...understand it, no, but I realize it. They have no problem clicking that yes button for Brown though. Shocking...
 

dvrmte

Major
Joined
Sep 3, 2009
Location
South Carolina
So, Lee got beat by a drunk??? Some general he was.

Yes a drunk with a big army backed by the largest field supply base of the War capable of producing 100,000 loaves of fresh hot bread a day, did beat an old man with a heart condition, leading an undersized, malnourished army.
 

JerseyBart

Brigadier General
Moderator
Forum Host
Joined
Jul 19, 2006
Location
New Jersey
Yes a drunk with a big army backed by the largest field supply base of the War capable of producing 100,000 loaves of fresh hot bread a day, did beat an old man with a heart condition, leading an undersized, malnourished army.
Cue the violins and harps please...
 

wilber6150

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Location
deep in the Mohawk Valley of Central New York
Huh? While I will totally agree with you that the slavers showed "no regard at all for the democratic process and were willing to use force to get what they lost politically", that was AFTER John Brown's attack, not before it. It certainly doesn't justify John Brown's attack. In fact, John Brown's attack played right into their hands.
No that was before it in the territories, Brown seeing first hand the disregard the slavers had for political change and the democratic process radicalized him into thinking that only violence could free the slaves..
 

brass napoleon

Colonel
Retired Moderator
Member of the Year
Honored Fallen Comrade
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Location
Ohio
No that was before it in the territories, Brown seeing first hand the disregard the slavers had for political change and the democratic process radicalized him into thinking that only violence could free the slaves..

Ah. OK. That's what you meant by "slavers".
 

JerseyBart

Brigadier General
Moderator
Forum Host
Joined
Jul 19, 2006
Location
New Jersey
Couldn't muster a harp but did manage to dig up a fiddle, which will substitute for a violin in a pinch.

Please stand for our national anthem!

Filmed by one of our members:


Sounds good...minus the burp at 29 seconds. I do love me some banjo music and singalongs. :smile:
 

gem

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Oct 26, 2012
They really should have listened to Sherman before the war then lol

Actually you make a very worthwhile point which I did not think about.

The reason he raided the arsenal was to get weapons to help free slaves.

Thus you are right, it does not really meet the legal definition of treason.
 

wilber6150

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Location
deep in the Mohawk Valley of Central New York
But his plan included a widespread armed insurrection against a people who had committed no crime in the legal sense. His plan was to establish a bastion of abolition in the heart of the South, a place he intented to establish his own State with its own laws and its own government and its own army - read his constitution - he may not have planned to overthrow the governments of the Southern States but he certainly planned to steal their land and create a land of his own, independent of them with its own President. This would have place him and his State at war with the Southern States of the Union, and that was treason as defined by the US Constitution in article 3: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." Thus the intention to create his own State in open opposition to the Southern States and their way of life is a treasonous act.

Actually he didn't want a widespread insurrection, as he stated that it would hurt his plans in the long run..He never intended to create his own state within the South, but a base from which to strike out at plantations, along with a series of other bases in the mountains to funnel people north..He wanted the price of slaves to plummet initially in the border states so that owners would be force to sell their slaves thus freeing the border states from slavery and then he would strike farther South..I haven't seen any primary sources stating that he planned to steal land in order to form his own nation and from there launch a war against Southern states....The constitution, he wrote was what he wanted the members of his band to adhere to and to give them some guiding principals to go by..If stealing private propety and using force on the question of slavery was treason then I say then he was just following the example of the slavers who did that very thing in the territories..
 

wilber6150

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Location
deep in the Mohawk Valley of Central New York
So you're saying that William Lloyd Garrison was a traitor and John Brown wasn't. Do I have that right?
If they were talking about secession and were willing to use force to acheive it then yes...If they were willing to go thru the political and Constitutional channels to do it then no...
 

brass napoleon

Colonel
Retired Moderator
Member of the Year
Honored Fallen Comrade
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Location
Ohio
Actually he didn't want a widespread insurrection, as he stated that it would hurt his plans in the long run..He never intended to create his own state within the South, but a base from which to strike out at plantations, along with a series of other bases in the mountains to funnel people north..He wanted the price of slaves to plummet initially in the border states so that owners would be force to sell their slaves thus freeing the border states from slavery and then he would strike farther South..I haven't seen any primary sources stating that he planned to steal land in order to form his own nation and from there launch a war against Southern states....The constitution, he wrote was what he wanted the members of his band to adhere to and to give them some guiding principals to go by..If stealing private propety and using force on the question of slavery was treason then I say then he was just following the example of the slavers who did that very thing in the territories..

That was his INITIAL plan. But his plan changed completely by the time he implemented it. As implemented, it's really hard to say what his plan was, but it certainly wasn't what he originally outlined to Frederick Douglass. It seems to me more a Hail Mary attempt at everlasting glory.
 

JerseyBart

Brigadier General
Moderator
Forum Host
Joined
Jul 19, 2006
Location
New Jersey
If they were talking about secession and were willing to use force to acheive it then yes...If they were willing to go thru the political and Constitutional channels to do it then no...
Funny how some can see Brown, Garrison, and Lee as treasonous. Others just cannot dare utter that Lee did anything wrong. The truth does hurt, even if it cannot be spoken or typed.
 

gem

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Oct 26, 2012
Why do people rob banks?

because that is where the money is. It does not mean that they committing treason.

Why did Brown raid an arsenal, because that's where the weapons were.
The weapons he was going to use not to overthrow government, but to free slaves.
 

wilber6150

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Location
deep in the Mohawk Valley of Central New York
To me the poll question was Brown a traitor to the US, and in my opinion I have not seen any evidence that he intended to wage war against the government of his country..If slaves were simply property then at most to me his crimes involved a widespread conspiracy of armed robbery along with other crimes committed in the course of that..Whether or not slavery was the underpinning of Southern soceity does not determine whether or not it was a treasonus act, as using that logic then it can't be said that he was treasonus to free states..
 
Top