Was John Brown Insane? (poll)

Was John Brown Insane?


  • Total voters
    109
I don't know. What research has been done to measure JB's state of mind then against mental fitness standards of the day? Would his state of mind back then be consistent with today's definition of insanity? Would that even be appropriate?

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/in-therapy/200907/the-definition-insanity-is

According to this doctor, insanity today is a legal term and a legal definition meant to determine a defendant's fitness to be tried for a crime. That is, can the defendant distinguish between right and wrong?

I don't know if the term "insanity" even existed a sesquentennial ago. Was there a legal standard back then to determine a defendant's legal fitness to be tried in a court of law?

Inquiring minds...want to know. :smile:
 
Last edited:
In order to be termed insane, one would have to show that his actions resulted from a dissociation with reality or a dissociation with reality prevented him from understanding his actions or their consequences.

Everything he said indicated he attacked the south because he wanted destabilize the slave holding states. That makes him militant, not insane.
 
Everything he said indicated he attacked the south because he wanted destabilize the slave holding states. That makes him militant, not insane.

That he thought he could achieve that goal with the resources available makes him insane, though. Or just incredibly foolish. I don't know.
 
That he thought he could achieve that goal with the resources available makes him insane, though. Or just incredibly foolish. I don't know.

That really depends on how he defined success. If his definition of success was that he would overthrow the southern states, i agree, that may make him foolish or insane.

However, if the mere act of his attack, he considered to be a success because of the chaos he would create, again would make him militant, not insane.
 
I would say no. You can make a good argument he was a terrorist, or proto terrorist, but that isn't insanity.

Here is one of the best talks I have seen on Brown.

http://www.c-span.org/video/?289567-1/BrownsR&showFullAbstract=1

On October 16, 1859, John Brown and 21 followers went to Harpers Ferry, Virginia, to strike a blow against slavery. The raid failed, but ignited the slavery debate. Sixteen months later, the United States erupted in civil war. 

Paul Finkelman talked about John Brown and the contradictions in his life, the underlying reasons why he felt justified to attack Harpers Ferry, and the question of whether his acts can be characterized as terrorism. Professor Finkelman also responded to questions from members of the audience.
 
I don't think he was any more insane than Osama bin Laden, unless we are defining insane as meaning having fundamentally different values from ours. He knew exactly what he was doing and he believed he was doing the work of God. What makes this uncomfortable is that we all sympathize with his goal of ending slavery.
 
I don't think he was any more insane than Osama bin Laden, unless we are defining insane as meaning having fundamentally different values from ours. He knew exactly what he was doing and he believed he was doing the work of God. What makes this uncomfortable is that we all sympathize with his goal of ending slavery.
If Osama had flown a plane into one of the buildings you're statement would have some merit but he didn't. He sat at home and let some crazy Saudis' do the deed.
 
BillO -- By your definition, there are alot of crazy people who've given their lives for a cause over the years, and we revere many of them as heroes. Anyway, what I was looking at for comparison was his cold-blooded willingness to kill, and I think the two are quite alike in that respect. Plus they both had long beards. :smile:
 
BillO -- By your definition, there are alot of crazy people who've given their lives for a cause over the years, and we revere many of them as heroes. Anyway, what I was looking at for comparison was his cold-blooded willingness to kill, and I think the two are quite alike in that respect. Plus they both had long beards. :smile:
Brown did his killing but Osama had others do it for him. To me that is a major difference.
 
I don't think he was any more insane than Osama bin Laden, unless we are defining insane as meaning having fundamentally different values from ours. He knew exactly what he was doing and he believed he was doing the work of God. What makes this uncomfortable is that we all sympathize with his goal of ending slavery.

your statement lacks merit.
 
Insane?…..I don't know…I'm not a psychiatrist….I have a hard time cavalierly tossing that term around…

-Do I think John Brown was a radical?….yes
-Was he a radical thinker for his time?….yes
-Was he a 'terrorist' of his time?…I believe so (read: strictly my own opinion)
-Was he obsessed?….yes.
-Was he a zealot?….yes.
-Did he really know what he was doing?…I firmly believe 'yes'
-Was he dangerous?…there is nothing more dangerous than a man who believes he has God on his side
-Do I buy his pretensions to piety?….not in the slightest

However,…I always thought he defined the term 'Crazy like a fox'….
 
I don't think he was any more insane than Osama bin Laden, unless we are defining insane as meaning having fundamentally different values from ours. He knew exactly what he was doing and he believed he was doing the work of God. What makes this uncomfortable is that we all sympathize with his goal of ending slavery.

His acts were no more radical than the firing on ft Sumter
 
Do we have a right to use modern standards to judge Browns actions? Today we use several definitions of insane, but was he insane by the standards of his day? Other than his dislike of slavery I have yet to see any other indications of thoughts or actions one would associate with insanity.
 
I don't think he was any more insane than Osama bin Laden, unless we are defining insane as meaning having fundamentally different values from ours. He knew exactly what he was doing and he believed he was doing the work of God. What makes this uncomfortable is that we all sympathize with his goal of ending slavery.
Well put Paul. He just felt that if he killed anyone or they were killed in consequence of his action they deserved it as his cause was somehow ordained by God and therefore just. Over the decades and millennia millions of individuals did unimaginable things in the "name of God".
 
This is a simple answer, but one with a caveat. Do I think John Brown was disturbed, and had psychological problems? Yes. To say the very least, and in a purely clinical sense, John Brown was at least a borderline psychopath.

That might come across as inflammatory, so pause for a moment and focus on that word "clinical." As an exercise, I took what I learned about John Brown after reading a favorable biography against the Hare Psychopathy Checklist. Brown scored 1 or 2 points on 13 out of 20 criteria.

But in a legal and modern sense, no, Brown was not insane. He might have been a borderline psychopath (or worse), but he was rational and fully aware of the consequences of his actions. He was not a lunatic.

Was John Brown Insane?
 
From my readings, John Brown held a clear sense of right and wrong when it came to slavery. So, I'm thinking he wasn't insane...at least by contemporary legal standards. However, he did appear to have a perverse sense of justice that he took to an extreme. At his trial he quoted Christ's "Golden Rule" of doing unto others as the basis for his retributive actions.

At the very least, I feel this makes him a false prophet who took to misquoting and misusing God's Word as a means to achieving his own Machiavellian ends.

That may have made him narcissistic and perhaps histrionic in personality. Maybe even delusional and/or paranoid in thought and mental processing. But even Schizophrenics can be found sane in spite of their mental illness.
 
Back
Top