i think that john brown was a good man because he tried to help the slaves. He even moved into a black community with the free slaves in New York. Brown had lot of courage doing what he did; by raising money to try to put a army together adn start a war in virginia against slavery. In my view of it i dont thiink he was a terrorist because he was trying to help people even though he did takes lives but it was for a good reason.
It doesn't matter if it was for a good cause or not. He was a terrorist. That's like the first thing the guy said. He used terrorist tactics. If the sons and daughters of liberty were terrorists, then so was he. I'm not saying i don't agree with his cause. His views on slavery were moral, but his ways of dealing with it were not. I don't see how he could be against slavery, and yet kill people at the same time.
I'm not really sure about this answer. I think he was right in his cause to fight for slavery but his tactics can be considered as wrong because they're violent. But then again, when you're fighting for something, isn't it also necessary to do what it takes to win so that you can fight what for you believe in?
It is hard to determine if John Brown was a terrorist. According to Webster's Dictionary, a terrorist, by definition, is one who "...uses terror and intimidation to gain one's political objectives." So yes, by definition John Brown was a terrorist. But if you look at it that way, so is the United States government, so were the Sons and Daughters of Liberty, so were the people who bribed others to vote for a particular Presidential candidate and threatened violence if they did not, etc. If you think about, a large portion of the people we study about were or are terrorists. Even if their cause is seems moral and right and justifies killing like Ryan said about Brown's cause, the Sunni terrorists in Iraq believe their cause is just and moral as well. Do you think of them as immoral terrorists or people valiantly fighting for their just cause? --Makes ya think, doesn't it?--
Yes John brown was a terrorist. He hated what america was and worked against it so bviously he was a terrorist. He was completely unpatriotic and thus should be considered a terrorist. Along with that he took a pro-active aproach to freeing the slaves whic was a direct attack on the government.
personally, it depends on how you look at it. the blacks, i'm pretty sure, didn't see him as a terrorist. yet, he was an american, so of course other americans are going to look at him in a negative light because he clearly was going against the american government. i think what he did was courageous, yet on the other hand, i'm sure there were other ways of him getting what he wanted. i didn't have to use "terrorist tactics", but then again, nothing else might have worked. like i said, it's all on how you look at it, how you take others' opinions, belieifs- cultural and personal, etc. into perspective.
I think that John Brown is a good person because he does what he think is right. Even though he knows that its going to be a life and death situation, he would still take the risk to do it anyways. You might say that what he's doing is wrong but being in the slave's point of view, wouldn't you want him to save you too? Even though he was hanged, he's not hanged for a bad reason. He's hanged as a life savior.
Wow!! John Brown was a great man, which I depicted from the thing I read about him. This story shows that people of that time could look pat race, as many Americans now a days have problems doing, and fight for what they think is true justice. John Brown was not a terrorist because it was like he made the people who where for slavery that he killed marners (sp). He did what he needed to do by any means nessicary to get his point across. TO me he just was not the type of guy to be on Bull he move and do when he need to. And no that does not make him a terrorist it makes him a hero to some.
I think that it all depends on how you think about it. I agree with Ryan because he(John Brown) had good intentions although the way he went about them wasn't neccessarily right. I also agree with what Evan said in class, that he was a terrorist because although hr tried to help people, so did the main terrorists today like Sadam Hussein. It all depends on how you view it. It's just like asking if Sadam Hussein was a terrorist or not. Some people may not think so because he was "helping people" The bottom line is that killing is still killing whether or not if it's for a good cause. There were other was that he could have helped instead of resorting to killing.
I believe that John Brown was one of the bravest abolitionist of all time. He didn't just speak against slavery, he actually did somethings to try to stop it. He tried to encourage the slaves to go up against their slave masters. He was the only white man to openly express his disregard for slavery in all aspects- politically, socially, economically. Most of the people of his day only "talked the talk" they never "walked the walk." He proved that he was really against slavery and not just against the south having a prosperous economy based on the slave trade.
I believe that Brown was a terrorist. If you use terrorist tactics you are a terrorist it doesn't matter what you are fighting for. Brown thought ending slavery was a very important cause and it was. But I'm sure Osama Bin Ladin thinks his cuase is outrgously important but he is still a terrorist. the word terrorist means a person who terrorises people. Killing and scaring them is terrorising them. There is no excuse.
John Brown killed people to make the proslavery activists afraid of him. He went aganist the US government. Yes, John Brown was a terrorist. He did things that many people feel was right, but Brown still used terror to get his way. He was very kind to blacks which I will always like, but I don't justify all the slaughter. The way in which he takes action is no different than the terriorist of today
John Brown was a man who was against slavery, which was good on many levels. He, unlike some other abolitionist reformers, used violent tactics rather than non violent reform movements. His persistance in trying to achieve what he believed in was without question persistant. I think it was great that he helped out the slavery movement by doing things such as give land to fugitive slaves, raising a black youth as one of his own, and participating in the Underground Railroad. Brown was selfless as he helped and risked his own neck, and then later died to help free the slaves. Without any real thought otherwise, most of Browns efforts to abloish slavery resulted in the thought of war rather than peaceful abolitionist action.
I believe that John Brown was a great man. He had all the characteristics of a great leader. He took action and actually tried to help the slaves, unlike some people who believe and say that it's wrong and think that it should be changed but never do anything. He stepped foward and told the slaves to stand up for themselves and go up against their masters. He was like their knight in shining armour that saved them and gave them good advice.
I don't think John Brown was a terrorist. He was helping a good cause. Those people who attacked the twin towers on 9/11 were terrorists. John Brown killed people, but he killed them to send a message to slave-owners everywhere. He was trying to help the African-Americans get out of slavery and if he had to do it in a violent matter, then so be it.
John Brown as not a terrorist he was fighting for a just cause. Now you could argue that he may have taken it too far but when you believe in something so passionately you will do almost anything for your cause.
John Brown to me, is a hypocrit for the fact that he's with the abolition of slavery yet he goes and kills people for it. There is a more liberal to get your message across. What he did was WAY out of the cause for slavery. It's fine to protest for slavery and for what he believed in, but to ACTUALLY plan a war for it, that's absolutely makes him a terrorist.
I believe that if one were to call John Brown a terrorist one would also have to call Malcolm X and others like him terrorists. John Brown, in some of his tactics used violence to prove his point. He wasn't just being violent for the sake of beig violent, he was violent with a cause. He was fighting for what was right and thanks partially to him there is no more slavery in America. John Brown may have been wrong in some of his processes of fighting but they were for the good of man kind. Reynolds stated that out of many killings that happend during Browns time only 8 were of abolitionists. And only 4 were commited by Brown. He is seen as a horrible terrorist who used slavery as an excuse to kill when really, i think, that him fighting for slavery led to a couple of deaths. I believe, from what ive heard, that John Brown was not a terrorist just an over-excited activist.
John Brown was truly a man who stood up for human rights. Although he killed proslavery settlers and others he wasn't a terrorist.I believe a terrorist is a person that kills and torture people for no reason at all. In my opinion John brown had a reason whether good or bad.
I don't believe tht John Brown was a terrorist or at least in te modern sense. I'm sure he scared people, but does that make anyone suddenly screams, a terrorist? A terrorist would be somebody who randomly hurts, kills, or threatens random innocent people. John Brown was too awesome...
You all seem to be missing the point: "Tyree Taylor said... I don't think John Brown was a terrorist. He was helping a good cause. Those people who attacked the twin towers on 9/11 were terrorists. John Brown killed people, but he killed them to send a message to slave-owners everywhere. He was trying to help the African-Americans get out of slavery and if he had to do it in a violent matter, then so be it."
Square-head (Tyree), no matter the cause, technically he was still a terrorist. You said that the ones who hijacked the planes on 9/11 were terrorists, yet you say John Brown wasn't because he was sending a message to slave-holders. One could argue that the terrorists were sending a message to the U.S. that day, as well. I'm not against the man, in fact I am grateful to him. I mean, some of us might not be typing on our computers right now if it weren't for him. Despite this, we have to face the facts, John Brown was a terrorist.
What John Brown did was good. The way he did it through terrorism wasn't really the best choice. There could've been other ways to deal with slavery. what does it matter now though? Slavery is gone and John got what he wanted.
John Brown was a terrorist on some levels but then again his heart was in the right place. It's amazing how he was trying to do something so great for slaves and that cause but I wonder why he used the violent tactics that he did. Was he a terrorist? That's a really hard question to call because for me personally I'm torn down the middle. That raises yet another question: Is violence okay if it's working towards a good cause? I don't really know the answer. This blog was interesting in that aspect.
i think that Brown was a good man he was tring to help the slaves. yes he used terrorist tactics to do so but it really was for a good cause he was doing it to help people not like the tactics that some terrorists use to day.
Even though he was fighting for a good cause, John Brown was a terrorist. He used terrorist tactics to achieve his goal, such as going to a proslavery town and murdering 5 settlers there. While his cause was moral, his actions were not. However, even though he used multiple terrorist tactics, he did do good things for his cause, such as helping with the underground railroad and provididng support even with his lack of money.
John Brown is a terrorist. i mean it was good of him to help the slaves but that doesnt mean that he isnt a terrorist. His tactics and ways of dealing with slavery label him a terrorist. even if he is doing something for a 'moral cause,' what he did was 'immoral'
Was John Brown a terrorist? The answer to that question is both yes and no. From the conservative point of view he was in fact a deadly terrorist. He went against the law of the society and killed pro-slavery activists. Just as the Sons and Daughters of Liberty killing for their cause. To the open minded liberal, he was not a terrorist, but he was a freedom fighter. Fighting for the freedoms of the blacks in his society. A question like this, the question of whether or not someone is a terrorist isn't possible to define without a point of view. My point of view, he was not a terrorist, but then again, I do not think the people killing the US soldiers in Iraq are terrorists either. Josh Heron Hr 3-4
Brown was not a terrorist. His objectives weren't to invoke terror on the Americans. Brown was more of an activist who just strongly believed in the abolition of slavery. Violence was necessary to stop the servitude that was killing slaves. His acts may have been immoral, but you can not call anyone who acts immorally a terrorist.
I don't think John Brown was a terrorist because he was trying to help the slaves. He might have broken some laws but it was for a good cause so they kind of cancel out - the good and the bad.
John Brown was not a terrorist. I agree with many of my peers that Brown could've used better tactics other than violence to abolish slavery, but by any means, at that time, other forms of actions could not have made a difference. Brown wasn't fighting and killing civilians for personal reasons; he was fighting for the betterment of mankind. Just the facts that Brown immersed himself into black communities during a time where black and white didn't mix and that Brown fought against slavery as though he was also harmed from it, shows how compassionate and willing Brown was to give up his life for what he believed in. Brown fought and gave his life up so that fellow humans would be free shows that he isn't a heinous monster. The people who were wrong were the slave owners who OWNED fellow human beings and treated them like property. Brown was merely doing what he thought was right to gain freedom for African-Americans. The bottom line is, because Brown was fighting for a cause that I believe and also support in, I don't consider Brown as a terrorist.
I personally do not think that John Brown was a terrorist because he was fighting for what he thought was right. Some people go to war and fight and kill innocent people over stupid things such as oil and he was actually fighting to keep people alive and for what was fair. If he was a terrorist he would have killed all people including the slaves but he only killed the people who were wrong.
John Brown to me, is a hypocrit for the fact that he's with the abolition of slavery yet he goes and kills people for it. Without any real thought otherwise, most of Browns efforts to abloish slavery resulted in the thought of war rather than peaceful abolitionist action.
no, i do not believe that john brown was a terrorist. sure, he fought for what he believed in, which, at that time also meant going against the law, but he didnt do in in a purposeful terrorist fashion. sure, he used terrorist tactics, but he didnt use them to evoke fear or hatred among the american people. he did it because he believe that enslaving people was morally wrong. its not like he was going around killing, or attempting to kill, random people. everything he did had a point- to lierate people who were enslaved.
I believe that John Brown was a respectible man. One that name should always be held in glory. He helped the slave. HE did the right thing. at that time in society he might have seemed like a "terrorist" to some but like a god to others. "Ones trash is anothers treasure."
In some eyes he might be looked at as a horrible person but in mine he is a true hero. yes his tactics might have been harsh, but he just reacted because of the way he was treated.
I believe that that Brwon was not a terrorist but seemed to get things done his own way, he felt that killing people who agreed with slavery was the way to achieve abolitionist ideas while many and most others believed that one could end slavery by attempting to free slaves or peacefully protest slavery in the South, Brown found it neccessary to actually kill those promoting slavery, he was no terrorist though, because what he was doing was attacking people who he saw as an enemy
I say Brown is a terrorist in the sense we use the term today. He did violence because he was a violent guy, not necessarily to achieve any particular larger objective. He went against the law and killed pro-salavery activists. He randomly shooting and kidnapping pro-salavary. On the otherhand, he recognized slavery as an evil and participated in the underground railroad. Many liberals will thing that he is not a terrorist because of his actions for freedom. But he is a terrorist because he go against political acts.
Is John Brown a terrorist? Terrorism is described as the use of unlaw violence and terror against a certian group of people. I have mixed views on the discussion on weather or not John Brown is a terrorist. On one hand he was a very brave indiviual, because he tried to help the slaves and make a better life for them. Then on the other hand the acts and measurements of violence against slave supportors. John Brown was willing (and did) kill people just to help his cause and express his views, but then again by any means necessary right? Maybe if it werent for John Brown putting the fear in people other indivuals may not have been willing to stand up for this cause. Someone made the comment that John Brown was wrong for killing people just for having different views, but these "so called" christain men were commenting these unholy acts. Two wrongs dont make a right, but that is exactly my point, I don't see how anyone can honestly ssy that John Brown is a terrorist when you examine all of the comments and look at the kind of people that were killed by John Brown and then look at the kind of people he tried to help.
I think John Brown can be considered as one who is a vagionous reflecter. Also know as a terrorist. The opononmy of the matriculation and the extra ordinary side burns of mr kern can attribute to vagionous reflectation. holla at a g
I think John Brown is only a terrorist in that he fought for a cause because he believed it was right and went against the law to do so. But at the same time, he was a good man who spent his whole life working to abolish slavery and to help ex-slaves gain priviliges. In our day, John Brown would be seen as a real patriot--he was only thought of as a terrorist back then because he was ahead of his time and because he went against the law in favor of better, moral motivations.
Even if John Brow's reasons were moral, his actions were not. Causing destruction and killing people are terrorist actions. By saying John Brown is not a terrorist then the people who crashed into the twin towers were not terrorist, because they believed their ideals were moral just like John Brown did. Yet, their action were wrong.
I dont think that Joohn Brown was a terrorist because, all he tried to do was abolish slavery in his own way. The killing of those people maybe wasnt necessary but it was a great step towards abolition. He was only trying to help the African American community gain liberty, and looking at the situation back then, he probably considered the killings necessary.
John Brown was not a terrorist. I think that he should be considered one of the great abolitionist of the time. He fought to get the black community liberty from slavery. It is not corect to call him a terrorist for fighting for a cause that was in great need of help.
Personally, I think that to say that John Brown is a terrorist is obsurd. John Brown's tactics maybe extreme, but to call him a terrorist is too extreme. This is the same thing today as to say Osama Bin Laden is a terrorist. Both figures wanted to better their society (in respect to time period). John Brown fought hard to end slavery at all costs. Osama is fighting today to keep "good ole President Bush" out of foreign affairs. I personally don't agree with the tactics both men used, but they each follow Malcolm X's advice: "By any means necessary." John Brown is only a terrorist to those who don't understand what he was fighting for. In the case of his methods, we can judge those. It's good he fought for slavery, but bad to call him a terrorist. The way to get noticed by people is to do something extreme like both of these people did. Everyone today is wondering when Bush will pull out of Iraq. Abolitionists wondered when slavery would be put to rest. The methods are only terrorist to those who don't understand what Brown is fighting for.
If you use the definition of a terrorist than yes John Brown is a terrorist. He used terror and intimidation to gain his political objectives. He imposed his ideas and views on others using force and violence. Even though John Brown was a good man fighting for a good cause his tactics were violent and he killed a lot of people which was just as wrong as slavery. Taking someones life is not a just action. At the same time one can argue that violence was the only way things were going to get solved and I believe that is true. The issue of expansion for slavery led to the civil war. Without the civil war and all the violence and killing slvery wouldn't have occured at that time in history. John Brown was using the neccessary means to get slavery abolished.
John Brown is a hero in my book. If you bold enough to live in the hood full of black people you are brave as ever.He was O.C. for killing people. He had some terrorist tactics but he was a cool terrorist to me. It don't matter to me if he was a terrorist or not, i respect anyone who stood up for my people back then. He got the White man Gee award of the day for standing up for the best race in America.
I think he was in fact a good man with good intentions, fighting for the right thing in the wrong way. No matter what your stand is, there's always a certain line you shouldn't cross that terrorists cross. He is a terrorist but he't not the only. Many people in history have been terrorists, we just choose to recgonize some rather than all.
Enslaving people and murdering them, splitting families apart and beating up people on daily basis is what i call terrorism. these are the real terrorists, and terrorizing terrorists is not terrorism. So in my opinion John Brown is like the U.S attacking terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan to stop them from terrorizing others. So John Brown had no other options but to become a "terrorist" because a society that supported slavery forced him to be one. If killing people for being black is not terrorism, so what is wrong with killing people for being terrorists.
Responding to all the comments that called John Brown a terrorist, if your race was enslaved for that long you would be calling him your best friend. the people that he attacked, they supported slavery, so if it wasn't for people like him, half the population of this country would be enslaved. so if you are black you better reconsider what you wrote. John brown was better than 50% of this country's population at the time.
Katie H. said that abolishing slavery could've happened peacefully and killing people wasn't the right way to do it. My answer is HELL NO, if it wasn't for the Civil war and bloodshed i would be your slave right now. so shut up and thank people like him for trying to abolish slavery
I do believe that John Brown was not a terrorist it is his right not to agree with how America is ran. Brown fought for something that he believed in and was confident about. I really admire him for his ambition to help slavery though. He was a strong and determined man.
John Brown, like many who have said, is both a good leader and a bad person. It depends on how you view him. The actions that he depicts, show that he is a caring man, especially when he fought for anti-slavary. He is also a terrorist, using tactics to win battles or conflicts. In his biography, it stated that, "Brown went to a proslavery town and brutally killed five of its settlers." Brown's action shows that he is a harsh man and does anything whenever and however he wants.
I think that John Brown is a terrorist, though it was for a good cause. By war you'll know peace, I guess that can be use to defend what he did. One of Thoreau idea is that if you think the government is wrong or corrupted you shouldn't follow it and resist it. This represented what Brown did.
Webster says that terorism is the SYSTEMATIC use of violence, terror (intense or overwhelming fear), and intimidation to achieve an end. So I do believe he was a terrorist to the slave owners and to the racists who ovbiously were lacking in the moral views department. Being militant is not always a awful thing if one is stuck in an impossible situation. also brown did a thing that few white people at that time were willing to do, physically stand against slavery. I believe that specifically directed terrorism is needed in certian incidents, e.g. combating terrorist societies and extreme imperlism. Ous current government makes terrorism out to be a forgien problem but in truth the U.S.A. is one of the top terrorist countrys in the whole world. Our top governmental oragnizations and militaries have caused more destruction of places and of people in the last century than any other country in the world. We are living in a country committing terrorist acts and being run by terrorists. We need to fix this because it is our responsibility as human beings.
Of course John Brown's a terrorist. He used organized violence and followers to get what he wanted. Murdering people who partook in slavery, but did not physically fight for their right to be slaveowners. Just because someone is raised one way and is brought up in a society were the main method of survival is through a slave-owning economy, doesn't mean they should be killed. When, however, he used guerilla tactics against armed militia, it is not terrorism. Also, I can't believe Kenyatta compared John Brown to Osama Bin Laden, positively no less. First, Brown was a tad more hands on, whereas Bin Laden hid behand his followers. Second, where Brown attacked armed and unarmed alike, Bin Laden had his blind followers murder innocent civilians in cold-blood. Finally, Brown did not start the military conflict but instead escalate it; Bin Laden attacked from across the seas, starting the conflict.
John Brown was tight. He had the guts to do stuff other people were scared to do. He is like the first Black Panter. Its about time somebody in those times did something about slavery. While others stood back and watch as their friends and family got linched he did something and made them pay. If I were back in the day I would be exacly like him. That is one cool guy, his my friend.
60 comments:
i think that john brown was a good man because he tried to help the slaves. He even moved into a black community with the free slaves in New York. Brown had lot of courage doing what he did; by raising money to try to put a army together adn start a war in virginia against slavery. In my view of it i dont thiink he was a terrorist because he was trying to help people even though he did takes lives but it was for a good reason.
It doesn't matter if it was for a good cause or not. He was a terrorist. That's like the first thing the guy said. He used terrorist tactics. If the sons and daughters of liberty were terrorists, then so was he. I'm not saying i don't agree with his cause. His views on slavery were moral, but his ways of dealing with it were not. I don't see how he could be against slavery, and yet kill people at the same time.
I'm not really sure about this answer. I think he was right in his cause to fight for slavery but his tactics can be considered as wrong because they're violent. But then again, when you're fighting for something, isn't it also necessary to do what it takes to win so that you can fight what for you believe in?
It is hard to determine if John Brown was a terrorist. According to Webster's Dictionary, a terrorist, by definition, is one who "...uses terror and intimidation to gain one's political objectives." So yes, by definition John Brown was a terrorist. But if you look at it that way, so is the United States government, so were the Sons and Daughters of Liberty, so were the people who bribed others to vote for a particular Presidential candidate and threatened violence if they did not, etc. If you think about, a large portion of the people we study about were or are terrorists. Even if their cause is seems moral and right and justifies killing like Ryan said about Brown's cause, the Sunni terrorists in Iraq believe their cause is just and moral as well. Do you think of them as immoral terrorists or people valiantly fighting for their just cause?
--Makes ya think, doesn't it?--
Yes John brown was a terrorist. He hated what america was and worked against it so bviously he was a terrorist. He was completely unpatriotic and thus should be considered a terrorist. Along with that he took a pro-active aproach to freeing the slaves whic was a direct attack on the government.
personally, it depends on how you look at it. the blacks, i'm pretty sure, didn't see him as a terrorist. yet, he was an american, so of course other americans are going to look at him in a negative light because he clearly was going against the american government. i think what he did was courageous, yet on the other hand, i'm sure there were other ways of him getting what he wanted. i didn't have to use "terrorist tactics", but then again, nothing else might have worked. like i said, it's all on how you look at it, how you take others' opinions, belieifs- cultural and personal, etc. into perspective.
*he didn't have to use...
I think that John Brown is a good person because he does what he think is right. Even though he knows that its going to be a life and death situation, he would still take the risk to do it anyways. You might say that what he's doing is wrong but being in the slave's point of view, wouldn't you want him to save you too? Even though he was hanged, he's not hanged for a bad reason. He's hanged as a life savior.
Wow!! John Brown was a great man, which I depicted from the thing I read about him. This story shows that people of that time could look pat race, as many Americans now a days have problems doing, and fight for what they think is true justice. John Brown was not a terrorist because it was like he made the people who where for slavery that he killed marners (sp). He did what he needed to do by any means nessicary to get his point across. TO me he just was not the type of guy to be on Bull he move and do when he need to. And no that does not make him a terrorist it makes him a hero to some.
I think that it all depends on how you think about it. I agree with Ryan because he(John Brown) had good intentions although the way he went about them wasn't neccessarily right. I also agree with what Evan said in class, that he was a terrorist because although hr tried to help people, so did the main terrorists today like Sadam Hussein. It all depends on how you view it. It's just like asking if Sadam Hussein was a terrorist or not. Some people may not think so because he was "helping people" The bottom line is that killing is still killing whether or not if it's for a good cause. There were other was that he could have helped instead of resorting to killing.
I believe that John Brown was one of the bravest abolitionist of all time. He didn't just speak against slavery, he actually did somethings to try to stop it. He tried to encourage the slaves to go up against their slave masters. He was the only white man to openly express his disregard for slavery in all aspects- politically, socially, economically. Most of the people of his day only "talked the talk" they never "walked the walk." He proved that he was really against slavery and not just against the south having a prosperous economy based on the slave trade.
I believe that Brown was a terrorist. If you use terrorist tactics you are a terrorist it doesn't matter what you are fighting for. Brown thought ending slavery was a very important cause and it was. But I'm sure Osama Bin Ladin thinks his cuase is outrgously important but he is still a terrorist. the word terrorist means a person who terrorises people. Killing and scaring them is terrorising them. There is no excuse.
John Brown killed people to make the proslavery activists afraid of him. He went aganist the US government. Yes, John Brown was a terrorist. He did things that many people feel was right, but Brown still used terror to get his way. He was very kind to blacks which I will always like, but I don't justify all the slaughter. The way in which he takes action is no different than the terriorist of today
John Brown was a man who was against slavery, which was good on many levels. He, unlike some other abolitionist reformers, used violent tactics rather than non violent reform movements. His persistance in trying to achieve what he believed in was without question persistant. I think it was great that he helped out the slavery movement by doing things such as give land to fugitive slaves, raising a black youth as one of his own, and participating in the Underground Railroad. Brown was selfless as he helped and risked his own neck, and then later died to help free the slaves. Without any real thought otherwise, most of Browns efforts to abloish slavery resulted in the thought of war rather than peaceful abolitionist action.
I believe that John Brown was a great man. He had all the characteristics of a great leader. He took action and actually tried to help the slaves, unlike some people who believe and say that it's wrong and think that it should be changed but never do anything. He stepped foward and told the slaves to stand up for themselves and go up against their masters. He was like their knight in shining armour that saved them and gave them good advice.
I don't think John Brown was a terrorist. He was helping a good cause. Those people who attacked the twin towers on 9/11 were terrorists. John Brown killed people, but he killed them to send a message to slave-owners everywhere. He was trying to help the African-Americans get out of slavery and if he had to do it in a violent matter, then so be it.
John Brown as not a terrorist he was fighting for a just cause. Now you could argue that he may have taken it too far but when you believe in something so passionately you will do almost anything for your cause.
John Brown to me, is a hypocrit for the fact that he's with the abolition of slavery yet he goes and kills people for it. There is a more liberal to get your message across. What he did was WAY out of the cause for slavery. It's fine to protest for slavery and for what he believed in, but to ACTUALLY plan a war for it, that's absolutely makes him a terrorist.
I believe that if one were to call John Brown a terrorist one would also have to call Malcolm X and others like him terrorists. John Brown, in some of his tactics used violence to prove his point. He wasn't just being violent for the sake of beig violent, he was violent with a cause. He was fighting for what was right and thanks partially to him there is no more slavery in America. John Brown may have been wrong in some of his processes of fighting but they were for the good of man kind. Reynolds stated that out of many killings that happend during Browns time only 8 were of abolitionists. And only 4 were commited by Brown. He is seen as a horrible terrorist who used slavery as an excuse to kill when really, i think, that him fighting for slavery led to a couple of deaths. I believe, from what ive heard, that John Brown was not a terrorist just an over-excited activist.
John Brown was truly a man who stood up for human rights. Although he killed proslavery settlers and others he wasn't a terrorist.I believe a terrorist is a person that kills and torture people for no reason at all. In my opinion John brown had a reason whether good or bad.
I don't believe tht John Brown was a terrorist or at least in te modern sense. I'm sure he scared people, but does that make anyone suddenly screams, a terrorist? A terrorist would be somebody who randomly hurts, kills, or threatens random innocent people.
John Brown was too awesome...
You all seem to be missing the point:
"Tyree Taylor said...
I don't think John Brown was a terrorist. He was helping a good cause. Those people who attacked the twin towers on 9/11 were terrorists. John Brown killed people, but he killed them to send a message to slave-owners everywhere. He was trying to help the African-Americans get out of slavery and if he had to do it in a violent matter, then so be it."
Square-head (Tyree), no matter the cause, technically he was still a terrorist. You said that the ones who hijacked the planes on 9/11 were terrorists, yet you say John Brown wasn't because he was sending a message to slave-holders. One could argue that the terrorists were sending a message to the U.S. that day, as well. I'm not against the man, in fact I am grateful to him. I mean, some of us might not be typing on our computers right now if it weren't for him. Despite this, we have to face the facts, John Brown was a terrorist.
Lester, why does the point that John Brown was a terrorist even matter?
point should be in quotes...
What John Brown did was good. The way he did it through terrorism wasn't really the best choice. There could've been other ways to deal with slavery. what does it matter now though? Slavery is gone and John got what he wanted.
John Brown was a terrorist on some levels but then again his heart was in the right place. It's amazing how he was trying to do something so great for slaves and that cause but I wonder why he used the violent tactics that he did. Was he a terrorist? That's a really hard question to call because for me personally I'm torn down the middle. That raises yet another question: Is violence okay if it's working towards a good cause? I don't really know the answer. This blog was interesting in that aspect.
i think that Brown was a good man he was tring to help the slaves. yes he used terrorist tactics to do so but it really was for a good cause he was doing it to help people not like the tactics that some terrorists use to day.
Even though he was fighting for a good cause, John Brown was a terrorist. He used terrorist tactics to achieve his goal, such as going to a proslavery town and murdering 5 settlers there. While his cause was moral, his actions were not. However, even though he used multiple terrorist tactics, he did do good things for his cause, such as helping with the underground railroad and provididng support even with his lack of money.
John Brown is a terrorist. i mean it was good of him to help the slaves but that doesnt mean that he isnt a terrorist. His tactics and ways of dealing with slavery label him a terrorist. even if he is doing something for a 'moral cause,' what he did was 'immoral'
Was John Brown a terrorist? The answer to that question is both yes and no. From the conservative point of view he was in fact a deadly terrorist. He went against the law of the society and killed pro-slavery activists. Just as the Sons and Daughters of Liberty killing for their cause. To the open minded liberal, he was not a terrorist, but he was a freedom fighter. Fighting for the freedoms of the blacks in his society. A question like this, the question of whether or not someone is a terrorist isn't possible to define without a point of view. My point of view, he was not a terrorist, but then again, I do not think the people killing the US soldiers in Iraq are terrorists either.
Josh Heron Hr 3-4
Brown was not a terrorist. His objectives weren't to invoke terror on the Americans. Brown was more of an activist who just strongly believed in the abolition of slavery. Violence was necessary to stop the servitude that was killing slaves. His acts may have been immoral, but you can not call anyone who acts immorally a terrorist.
I don't think John Brown was a terrorist because he was trying to help the slaves. He might have broken some laws but it was for a good cause so they kind of cancel out - the good and the bad.
John Brown was not a terrorist. I agree with many of my peers that Brown could've used better tactics other than violence to abolish slavery, but by any means, at that time, other forms of actions could not have made a difference. Brown wasn't fighting and killing civilians for personal reasons; he was fighting for the betterment of mankind. Just the facts that Brown immersed himself into black communities during a time where black and white didn't mix and that Brown fought against slavery as though he was also harmed from it, shows how compassionate and willing Brown was to give up his life for what he believed in. Brown fought and gave his life up so that fellow humans would be free shows that he isn't a heinous monster. The people who were wrong were the slave owners who OWNED fellow human beings and treated them like property. Brown was merely doing what he thought was right to gain freedom for African-Americans. The bottom line is, because Brown was fighting for a cause that I believe and also support in, I don't consider Brown as a terrorist.
I personally do not think that John Brown was a terrorist because he was fighting for what he thought was right. Some people go to war and fight and kill innocent people over stupid things such as oil and he was actually fighting to keep people alive and for what was fair. If he was a terrorist he would have killed all people including the slaves but he only killed the people who were wrong.
John Brown to me, is a hypocrit for the fact that he's with the abolition of slavery yet he goes and kills people for it.
Without any real thought otherwise, most of Browns efforts to abloish slavery resulted in the thought of war rather than peaceful abolitionist action.
no, i do not believe that john brown was a terrorist. sure, he fought for what he believed in, which, at that time also meant going against the law, but he didnt do in in a purposeful terrorist fashion. sure, he used terrorist tactics, but he didnt use them to evoke fear or hatred among the american people. he did it because he believe that enslaving people was morally wrong. its not like he was going around killing, or attempting to kill, random people. everything he did had a point- to lierate people who were enslaved.
*to liberate people who were enlsaved.
I believe that John Brown was a respectible man. One that name should always be held in glory. He helped the slave. HE did the right thing. at that time in society he might have seemed like a "terrorist" to some but like a god to others. "Ones trash is anothers treasure."
In some eyes he might be looked at as a horrible person but in mine he is a true hero. yes his tactics might have been harsh, but he just reacted because of the way he was treated.
I believe that that Brwon was not a terrorist but seemed to get things done his own way, he felt that killing people who agreed with slavery was the way to achieve abolitionist ideas while many and most others believed that one could end slavery by attempting to free slaves or peacefully protest slavery in the South, Brown found it neccessary to actually kill those promoting slavery, he was no terrorist though, because what he was doing was attacking people who he saw as an enemy
I say Brown is a terrorist in the sense we use the term today. He did violence because he was a violent guy, not necessarily to achieve any particular larger objective. He went against the law and killed pro-salavery activists. He randomly shooting and kidnapping pro-salavary. On the otherhand, he recognized slavery as an evil and participated in the underground railroad. Many liberals will thing that he is not a terrorist because of his actions for freedom. But he is a terrorist because he go against political acts.
Is John Brown a terrorist?
Terrorism is described as the use of unlaw violence and terror against a certian group of people. I have mixed views on the discussion on weather or not John Brown is a terrorist. On one hand he was a very brave indiviual, because he tried to help the slaves and make a better life for them. Then on the other hand the acts and measurements of violence against slave supportors. John Brown was willing (and did) kill people just to help his cause and express his views, but then again by any means necessary right? Maybe if it werent for John Brown putting the fear in people other indivuals may not have been willing to stand up for this cause. Someone made the comment that John Brown was wrong for killing people just for having different views, but these "so called" christain men were commenting these unholy acts. Two wrongs dont make a right, but that is exactly my point, I don't see how anyone can honestly ssy that John Brown is a terrorist when you examine all of the comments and look at the kind of people that were killed by John Brown and then look at the kind of people he tried to help.
I think John Brown can be considered as one who is a vagionous reflecter. Also know as a terrorist. The opononmy of the matriculation and the extra ordinary side burns of mr kern can attribute to vagionous reflectation. holla at a g
I think John Brown is only a terrorist in that he fought for a cause because he believed it was right and went against the law to do so. But at the same time, he was a good man who spent his whole life working to abolish slavery and to help ex-slaves gain priviliges. In our day, John Brown would be seen as a real patriot--he was only thought of as a terrorist back then because he was ahead of his time and because he went against the law in favor of better, moral motivations.
Even if John Brow's reasons were moral, his actions were not. Causing destruction and killing people are terrorist actions. By saying John Brown is not a terrorist then the people who crashed into the twin towers were not terrorist, because they believed their ideals were moral just like John Brown did. Yet, their action were wrong.
I dont think that Joohn Brown was a terrorist because, all he tried to do was abolish slavery in his own way. The killing of those people maybe wasnt necessary but it was a great step towards abolition. He was only trying to help the African American community gain liberty, and looking at the situation back then, he probably considered the killings necessary.
John Brown was not a terrorist. I think that he should be considered one of the great abolitionist of the time. He fought to get the black community liberty from slavery. It is not corect to call him a terrorist for fighting for a cause that was in great need of help.
Personally, I think that to say that John Brown is a terrorist is obsurd. John Brown's tactics maybe extreme, but to call him a terrorist is too extreme. This is the same thing today as to say Osama Bin Laden is a terrorist. Both figures wanted to better their society (in respect to time period). John Brown fought hard to end slavery at all costs. Osama is fighting today to keep "good ole President Bush" out of foreign affairs.
I personally don't agree with the tactics both men used, but they each follow Malcolm X's advice: "By any means necessary." John Brown is only a terrorist to those who don't understand what he was fighting for. In the case of his methods, we can judge those. It's good he fought for slavery, but bad to call him a terrorist. The way to get noticed by people is to do something extreme like both of these people did. Everyone today is wondering when Bush will pull out of Iraq. Abolitionists wondered when slavery would be put to rest. The methods are only terrorist to those who don't understand what Brown is fighting for.
If you use the definition of a terrorist than yes John Brown is a terrorist. He used terror and intimidation to gain his political objectives. He imposed his ideas and views on others using force and violence. Even though John Brown was a good man fighting for a good cause his tactics were violent and he killed a lot of people which was just as wrong as slavery. Taking someones life is not a just action. At the same time one can argue that violence was the only way things were going to get solved and I believe that is true. The issue of expansion for slavery led to the civil war. Without the civil war and all the violence and killing slvery wouldn't have occured at that time in history. John Brown was using the neccessary means to get slavery abolished.
John Brown is a hero in my book. If you bold enough to live in the hood full of black people you are brave as ever.He was O.C. for killing people. He had some terrorist tactics but he was a cool terrorist to me. It don't matter to me if he was a terrorist or not, i respect anyone who stood up for my people back then. He got the White man Gee award of the day for standing up for the best race in America.
I think he was in fact a good man with good intentions, fighting for the right thing in the wrong way. No matter what your stand is, there's always a certain line you shouldn't cross that terrorists cross. He is a terrorist but he't not the only. Many people in history have been terrorists, we just choose to recgonize some rather than all.
Enslaving people and murdering them, splitting families apart and beating up people on daily basis is what i call terrorism.
these are the real terrorists, and terrorizing terrorists is not terrorism. So in my opinion John Brown is like the U.S attacking terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan to stop them from terrorizing others.
So John Brown had no other options but to become a "terrorist" because a society that supported slavery forced him to be one. If killing people for being black is not terrorism, so what is wrong with killing people for being terrorists.
Responding to all the comments that called John Brown a terrorist, if your race was enslaved for that long you would be calling him your best friend.
the people that he attacked, they supported slavery, so if it wasn't for people like him, half the population of this country would be enslaved. so if you are black you better reconsider what you wrote. John brown was better than 50% of this country's population at the time.
Katie H. said that abolishing slavery could've happened peacefully and killing people wasn't the right way to do it.
My answer is HELL NO, if it wasn't for the Civil war and bloodshed i would be your slave right now.
so shut up and thank people like him for trying to abolish slavery
I do believe that John Brown was not a terrorist it is his right not to agree with how America is ran. Brown fought for something that he believed in and was confident about. I really admire him for his ambition to help slavery though. He was a strong and determined man.
John Brown, like many who have said, is both a good leader and a bad person. It depends on how you view him. The actions that he depicts, show that he is a caring man, especially when he fought for anti-slavary. He is also a terrorist, using tactics to win battles or conflicts. In his biography, it stated that, "Brown went to a proslavery town and brutally killed five of its settlers." Brown's action shows that he is a harsh man and does anything whenever and however he wants.
I think that John Brown is a terrorist, though it was for a good cause. By war you'll know peace, I guess that can be use to defend what he did. One of Thoreau idea is that if you think the government is wrong or corrupted you shouldn't follow it and resist it. This represented what Brown did.
Webster says that terorism is the SYSTEMATIC use of violence, terror (intense or overwhelming fear), and intimidation to achieve an end. So I do believe he was a terrorist to the slave owners and to the racists who ovbiously were lacking in the moral views department. Being militant is not always a awful thing if one is stuck in an impossible situation. also brown did a thing that few white people at that time were willing to do, physically stand against slavery. I believe that specifically directed terrorism is needed in certian incidents, e.g. combating terrorist societies and extreme imperlism. Ous current government makes terrorism out to be a forgien problem but in truth the U.S.A. is one of the top terrorist countrys in the whole world. Our top governmental oragnizations and militaries have caused more destruction of places and of people in the last century than any other country in the world. We are living in a country committing terrorist acts and being run by terrorists. We need to fix this because it is our responsibility as human beings.
Of course John Brown's a terrorist. He used organized violence and followers to get what he wanted. Murdering people who partook in slavery, but did not physically fight for their right to be slaveowners. Just because someone is raised one way and is brought up in a society were the main method of survival is through a slave-owning economy, doesn't mean they should be killed. When, however, he used guerilla tactics against armed militia, it is not terrorism. Also, I can't believe Kenyatta compared John Brown to Osama Bin Laden, positively no less. First, Brown was a tad more hands on, whereas Bin Laden hid behand his followers. Second, where Brown attacked armed and unarmed alike, Bin Laden had his blind followers murder innocent civilians in cold-blood. Finally, Brown did not start the military conflict but instead escalate it; Bin Laden attacked from across the seas, starting the conflict.
John Brown was tight. He had the guts to do stuff other people were scared to do. He is like the first Black Panter. Its about time somebody in those times did something about slavery. While others stood back and watch as their friends and family got linched he did something and made them pay. If I were back in the day I would be exacly like him. That is one cool guy, his my friend.
Post a Comment