My Epitaph of John Brown


Recently, historian Howard Zinn wrote, “In 1859, John Brown was hanged, with federal complicity, for attempting to do by small scale violence what Lincoln would do by large scale violence several years later—end slavery.” Was John Brown a terrorist or a civil rights crusader?
Do you think that Zinn is suggesting that President Lincoln aimed to finish what John Brown Started? Was the Civil War fought over the morality of slavery or were there more difficult constitutional issues at the root of the problem? What do you believe the core issues to have been?

John Brown was a man who believed in the Constitution and believed that slavery was wrong, unconstitutional, and long over due to be abolished. He was a very religious man, and though his actions were based on his personal faith, he did not act in the name of God, he acted in the name of people who did not have a voice; the slaves. I don’t believe John Brown would have taken the actions that he did without seeking alternative solutions. In John Brown’s eyes, his actions were those of last resort. Alternative solutions (and Constitutional ones) were tried many times over by abolitionists and free slaves all over the country including the free-staters of Kansas. They challenged slavery laws, appealed to their representatives, to their Governors, wrote letters, passes resolutions among anti-slavery groups, and even appealed to the President to aid in the situation, and the system set up by the constitution to allow change and to protect the rights of its citizens in a democratic way, failed them. Nothing was done, nobody acted in accordance with their job descriptions, which was to represent the sentiments of their constituents. In Kansas the majority constituency was vehemently against slavery, and it should be noted were peace-loving people. But keep in mind, these people did not travel for months to settle this new state that was at first promised to be slavery-free, just to have their rights and their voice in government revoked. Kansas, at that time, was the frontier and not a hospitable place in and of itself, and the people of Kansas felt that their government had abandoned them and the only person that stepped up to show any kind of leadership in the fight against their aggressors was John Brown. He was a leader, not a terrorist, for an underrepresented people, including slaves and the hard working and underappreciated settlers of Kansas. He just happened to be brave enough to stand up on these peoples’ behalf and send a clear and effective message to the United States government that slavery, at least in their neck of the woods, would not be tolerated, as well as, the intimidation of Kansans by pro-slavery factions and Missouri border-ruffians. This message, as a means of last resort, according to John Brown, had to have been written in blood, because all of the unanswered, peaceable attempts to resolve the issue had failed, and by this time it was believed force was the only way to get the president, congress, and the rest of the country to listen. It was already inevitable that the volatile situation in Kansas was going to lead to some type of violence. John Brown simply gave people a name and face to point a finger at, either in agreement with or in protest of. Mr. Brown saw his new-found position of recognition (and infamy) as a national pulpit from which he could preach the sentiments of what so many people had believed for so long; that slavery was wrong and the people propagating it as an institution needed to be stopped. But this time it was actions, not words spewing forth from the Brown stump and the entire country harkened.

If I ever get a tattoo, this would be a really cool scene to have!

Posted: Wed - May 5, 2004 at 01:06 AM        

©