Blog #7 – John Brown: Traitor or Hero/Martyr
Barack Obama, John Brown, William Ayers, slavery, terrorism April 12th, 2009This idea has been floating around in my head since last summer ever since I watched the HBO miniseries about John Adams John Adams (highly recommended – check it out at the link to the right!). I had wondered how we would see/view something like the Boston Tea Party in a modern context.
Would these modern-day Sons of Liberty be seen as attractive rebels to emulate like those of the past? Or would they be viewed as subversive radicals bent on destroying the foundation of American society? Might it depend upon what they do? If they killed people in their protest instead of just destroying property, then that might be a line that cannot be crossed.
During the 2008 presidential campaign, Barack Obama’s association with a former fugitive and radical student leader, William Ayers was called into question. Ayers is now a professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago (as was his wife, another fugitive from the same radical student group called the Weather Underground), but had been a fugitive on the run for 10 years after being implicated in several bombing plots. Ayers and his Weathermen cohorts felt that the student radicals weren’t doing enough to stop the Vietnam War, so more radical action was needed like the bombings of statues and buildings in 1969 and 1970. After April 1970, the FBI issued a warrant for the Weathermen’s arrest, so Ayers and his future wife disappeared until 1980 when they turned themselves in. Their cases were tossed out of court for insufficient evidence.
Today, Ayers teaches college students how to be teachers. In fact, a documentary on the Weather Underground examined the lives of 6 of them and 1/2 of them are college professors. But his connection to Barack Obama was that the president began his political career by having an informal fundraiser at the Ayers’ household. Also, Obama and Ayers sat on a board of directors together for the Annenburg Foundation, a prestigious organization dedicated to education that also included several Republicans.
To quote the Chicago Sun-Times:
In the mid-1990s, Ayers and Dohrn hosted a meet-and-greet at their house to introduce Obama to their neighbors during his first run for the Illinois Senate. In 2001, Ayers contributed $200 to Obama’s campaign. Ayers also served alongside Obama between December 1999 and December 2002 on the board of the not-for-profit Woods Fund of Chicago. That board met four times a year, and members would see each other at occasional dinners the group hosted.
In addition, Ayers and Obama interacted occasionally in their roles with the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a not-for-profit group charged with spending tens of millions of dollars it obtained through its affiliation with a school-improvement foundation created by late Ambassador Walter H. Annenberg. Obama chaired the Chicago Annenberg Challenge’s board of directors. Ayers served on the Chicago School Reform Collaborative, which made recommendations to the board on which organizations should get grants. The groups worked on school-reform efforts between 1995 and 2000.
Democrats first used this information about Ayers in the primaries and then the other side used it once Obama had the nomination wrapped up last summer. They’ve used it to call Obama a “terrorist” and a Communist – it’s a typical guilt-by-association tactic. Does it mean Obama supports the radical poitics of the Weathermen? No. The same goes for McCain – you can’t judge him by some of his racist supporters either.
My thoughts: Does yesterday’s rebel equal today’s nostalgic memory? Is it “once a terrorist, always a terrorist”? I don’t think we can even avoid using the word “terrorist” today even if the situations are different; after 1995 and the Oklahoma City bombing, it all changed. The federal building there was blown apart by a home grown terrorist, not by a well-funded cell from a foreign land.
So, what if John Brown had lived after the raid on Harpers Ferry? What if the trial had been moved to a northern city or state instead of in Virginia where the raid took place? He might have gotten a sympathetic jury; or, what if he had escaped?! What if he was on the run for six years like Ayers until the Civil War was over, slavery was outlawed, and the Republicans were in power? Is it possible Brown would get a lighter sentence or none at all? Might he be considered one of the heroes of the war alongside General Grant and President Lincoln?
Blog question: Should JB be considered a hero / martyr to the cause of slavery or a traitor to the nation for attempting to incite a slave rebellion? Why? Does it make a difference that he was hoping to get slaves to fight in this rebellion to fight what he considered to be an unjust and immoral law?
April 14th, 2009 at 6:24 am
I think that it really depends on the circumstances. If there was only a few people in the u.s had the belief then yes any acts related to that belief would be terroristic. If a majority of people had that belief then it would be ok. We can’t forget that the Boston Tea Party was non-violent and no one was even bruised. The act was against the opposing government and not the “government” of the people. I think that an act is only terroristic if it affects a majority of the people in a way that they think is negative. I don’t think that the Boston tea party was an act of terror but more of rebellion. It is almost the same as protest held in Washington D.C. I don’t think that John Adams should have been hung or killed. I do think that what he did was illegal under British law and he should have been arrested for it. There were others non-illegal tings he could have done thou they might not of ad as big an effect.
April 14th, 2009 at 7:16 am
I agree with Andrew, how the radical group will be viewed largely depends on the circumstances. Destroying property to emphasize a point is on a completely different level than taking a life. I think that the term “terrorism” can vary in definition depending on the individual, the reason for the “terrorist” act, and what this act entailed.
I’m still unsure on whether or not “the modern-day Sons of Liberty” will be seen as “attractive rebels”. There is always a rebel side to everything, but I think the majority of the population isn’t exactly happy with the way things are, but they tend to stray from associating themselves with “radical behavior”.
Besides, there are people that rebel in small ways every day. Talking on the phone will driving a car, or speeding up in the midst of a yellow light can even be seen as rebellion. I have concluded that how this group of people ate viewed depends largely on the cause, and how it is emphasized.
April 14th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
I think radical groups that fight for their rights are understandable. If you are trying to kill or harm someone, I’m not sure what I’d think about that (depending on the situation). If we didn’t have radical people, some major turning points in history wouldn’t of happened, or maybe at a later date, altering time. I agree with Sydney on how modern day people are being radical in small ways by talking on the phone while driving or doing something without permission. The modern-day Sons of Liberty are just a modern version of what happened in the past. The “sons” are fighting, but not so attractive because being too radical can cause problems. Killing people and destroying property is extreme, which is too crazy for proving a point, because it can make the situation worse. I don’t think killing people is a great idea because that’s just too cruel! Organized and peaceful marches are totally understandable. It’s also difficult to voice your opinion when there are so many restrictions, so that is why people go nuts and kill people or destroy property, ect.
April 14th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
Honestly I don’t know what to think, because everybody has a different point of view on what’s consider being a terrorist and what’s being a hero. For example, during the civil rights movement black people saw the civil rights leaders (Martin Luther King, Rosa Park, Malcolm X, etc.) as heroes, while some white people saw them as terrorist that are trying to destroy America. Also, some of those same white people supported the KKK, who in the eyes of black people are terrorists. My feelings towards John Brown is undecided, he has done some things that make me think he is a crazy person who is a border line terrorist, but his purpose and reasons for doing the things he did, makes me want to call him a hero. I think his legacy as a hero or terrorist will always be a gray area in history, and can only be answered by your opinion on the subject.
Myles Williams
April 14th, 2009 at 6:55 pm
These modern day Sons of Liberty would have been viewed as a hero or heroin. However it depends on the circumstance and situation. Martin Luther King Jr. rebelled against segregation an is now viewed as a world wide hero.
The morals behind the persons action and behavior, can set the tone for the outcome of the rebellion. Many of the Sons of Liberty actions, of rebellion were violent. However the point was gotten across, and the outcome was written in history. For example, John Brown was seen as a rebellion. Killing people and destroying property with his outrage. However his point was gotten across, and he is now praised. The situation and the circumstance of the rebellion, plays a big role as to how the individual was praised in our American Society.
April 15th, 2009 at 4:11 am
I believe if the son of liberty were present in modern day times they would be viewed as terrorist. Our world has seen planes crashing into the buildings and suicide bombers kill many people. The acts that the sons of liberty orchestrated would not be as bad so those but they would still be judged according to their bad behavior. It seems they found a way that gets there point across without the use of kill human beings. The dumping of the tea in the harbor was acted as there why of protesting. It was not walking around with signs or killing. It was extreme but enough that it was not to extreme as what America has seen. Today they would be called radicals trying to destroy America but really they helped Americans. For example everyone was affected by this tax on the tea and they only wanted to make it better and fairer for America. I think the reason why we would view them as radicals is because when someone does something out of the norm we are quick to be afraid and fear what might happen next. We judge them based on the bad things they did because no normal person would do that. Today the sons of liberty I think would not be surprised at the wars we are in. When bad things happen on our soil that is unacceptable and need to be taken care of.
April 15th, 2009 at 5:53 am
Everyone is not going to agree about everything. In this country we have a right to protest and a lot of people do. Like others, I think it greatly depends on the circumstances. Also one person may see something as terroristic while another does not. There are so many different factors that it is hard to answer the question. I personally think only time will tell whether modern-day Sons of Liberty will be seen as attractive rebels or as terroristic. Many people in the past such as John Brown, Rosa Parks, and Martin Luther King were all seen as bad people and rebels. However today, without these people where would our country be? Although at the time it might have seemed like they were destroying American Society, they have really made a difference and made us stronger. Without these rebels how would our lives be different? Maybe the government does need a rebel.
I personally think that killing a person is the worst thing someone can do. So in any situation where someone is shot, I believe no matter what the reason it is wrong. I think this question is really too difficult to come up with one concrete answer. Some many factors play a role, what Ayers did might seem bad now but in 100 years it might seem great. I think time is the closest thing we can answer this question by.
Allison LaSota
April 15th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
I don’t think it would be accurate to label John Brown a traitor. Our nation was founded on the idea of liberty for all people. We cannot fault him for wanting to protest a law that glaringly contradicts this fundamental value of our government. An injustice of that magnitude demands immediate action. In this case slavery was the traitor, not Brown.
But Brown’s methods were barbaric. Though his cause may have been noble, we cannot forget that Brown hacked five people to death in Kansas. His brand of rebellion is a lot harder to swallow than that of nonviolent protesters like Martin Luther King or the Sons of Liberty (who only destroyed property). It is hard to call such a man a hero, knowing the cruelty he is capable of.
If John Brown had survived long enough to see the end of the civil war and turned himself in, I think it is quite probable that he would he would have been judged less harshly. With slavery abolished, Brown would seem a lot less radical, and a lot more like a man ahead of his time.
That isn’t to say that every modern day terrorist will be revered in the future. It all hinges upon whether the cause they fought for, in later years, becomes widely accepted. Vietnam War protesters like Ayers are pardoned because we now view American military action in Vietnam as a grave mistake. But the terrorists who perpetrated the attack on the twin towers will never be considered heroes (at least not by the people in this country!).
April 15th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
John Brown could be seen as a hero for his intentions to end slavery across the country. But his actions didn’t give out the same image. He killed 5 people in Kansas and raided Harper’s Ferry, actions that could be seen as terrorism. So while he intended to do good things, he ended up crossing the line between right and wrong. People like Martin Luther King Jr. and Rosa Parks are seen as heroes now because of their non-violent actions, but at first, they were seen as rebels. They wanted equality, and they fought for it peacefully. John Brown can be seen as both a hero and a rebel/terrorist. He wanted to end slavery, and the only way he thought he could end that was by acts that today, could be deemed terrorism/rebellious. Today, any major attack on people/buildings could be seen as a terrorist attack. But John Brown had the right intentions, to end slavery, something that could portray him as a hero. But at the time, he thought acts of violence were the only way things could change. I also agree with Myles and how one’s opinion would see someone like John Brown as either a hero, or a rebel/traitor.
-Maher A.
April 15th, 2009 at 6:03 pm
When it comes down to it, John Brown was both a martyr, and a traitor. He was helping the cause he believed in, but it went against the country’s law. The only way to truly decide what John was, would to have a northern or southern mindset. Personally, I detest the idea of slavery, so I would side with John and praise him for the martyr that he was. He walked into a suicidal mission to try and free the slaves, just because he felt that strongly about it. He gave his life for the cause, and I applaud him for it. However, the way John took action marginally made him look like a traitor. Not only were his tactics incredibly radical and violent-taking hostages and hacking them to bits-, his overall plan almost seems like a coup d’etat. He wanted to plan a revolution and overthrow the southern slave-owners. That is one of the most turncoat things a person could do. Truly, if you didn’t have your own opinion about slavery, John’s actions would be complex to figure out. I like to believe that since he has fighting for equality and the greater good, John Brown was a hero, no matter his actions.
April 15th, 2009 at 6:07 pm
I really think that radicals groups that fight for their rights are acceptable because everybody should have the possibility to listen to them even if their ideas are wrong but talking about terrorists is completely different. In fact it all depends on the point of views, for example September 11 it’s an horrible thing and the people who did it shouldn’t be alive but I am sure that for the people in Afghanistan or other countries that hate America was seen as a good thing and the terrorists who did it were seen as heroes, same thing happened to John Brown. I am sure that people who were for the slavery thought that he was crazy and it’s a good thing that he was hanged but a lot of other people that were against slavery saw him as an hero even if he killed people and did bad things.
April 15th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
I believe that if John Brown had somehow managed to escape his death sentence he still would not have been viewed as a hero or martyr in the cause of slavery. His actions were very unlike the rebellious Sons of Liberty who dumped tea into the harbor in the fact that Brown’s rebellion was extremely violent, and ended with the murder of many men fighting both for and against Brown. Murder and violence is not an acceptable means of making a point, and though Brown’s objection to the unjust slave laws were valid, he actions were terribly wrong and inexcusable. There were many other peaceful or political means of getting his views across that Brown’s violent raid was unnecessary. I don’t believe, however, that John Brown should necessarily be labeled a traitor. He stood up for what he believed in and protested an unjust and immoral law-his methods of protest just needed major revision.
April 15th, 2009 at 8:07 pm
This whole idea of whether John Brown was a traitor got me thinking about the context of what we are dealing with. We are being asked to judge a man’s character almost 200 years after his death using the values and ethical guidelines of our modern world. As we are reminded by a few of my classmates who posted before me, this is a man who hacked to death five people. That’s a little something called murder and in every sense of the word. Yet, here we are debating whether this man was a hero? When taken out of context John Brown is no more a hero than, say, Charles Manson or the Unibomber. So, why do we do it? Easy, because the North won and slavery was outlawed. John Brown’s ideals were proven to be true, really through no fault of his own. Could you imagine this conversation happening had the South won the war and slavery had not been outlawed? If you can’t, it’s because we wouldn’t be having it at all. Were that the case (South winning I mean.) John Brown’s ideals would have been proven false, labeling him as a traitor forever. Another, albeit hypothetical, example of this would be: imagine 250 years from now, Islam has become the religion of the US and it is something we are immersed in everyday, would Bin Laden still be considered a terrorist or would he be seen a more of a second Mohammed as the “father of Islam” in the western world? Just something to think about.
April 16th, 2009 at 8:16 am
I think that in the world that we live in today, John Brown would be considered a hero. But, I think that during the time period in which he was living and fighting, he could be seen both ways, as a hero as well as a traitor to the nation. How John Brown is viewed is different within every person. It depends on where you grew up, how you grew up, the time period that they grew up in, as well as your morals that you value. The way that I view him, is one of a heroic view. He did not agree with the idea of slavery and thought that it was not right. Because of this he decided to act against the people that were responsible for slavery and who supported it. He wanted to show the slaves that they were just as equal as those who they worked for and that they could fight back. By deciding to raid Harpers Ferry, he showed the country how he felt and that there were others that wanted to help. Now, I do realize that he acted out in some pretty radical ways, such as killing five proslavery men, and it is this reason that I think some people could also view him and his actions as a traitor.
April 16th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
Considering the point in time when John Brown was raised, we can see that the idea of a so-called “terrorist” is quit different from what our country might consider a terrorist today. Because time, ideas, and government issues have changed, there is not one right answer to naming J.B a “hero” or “terrorist” for his actions. If John Brown would have been given another trial and had been seen as a person trying to make good in the country, I’m pretty sure he would have not been killed. I, myself, do not consider John Brown to be a terrorist, but just a man trying to express his point of views on the issue of slavery. Although the way he came about how to show his feelings were not necessarily just and right, he still was trying to promote a cause that slavery was not how god intended everyone to treat each other. The fact that John Brown tried to get slaves to fight in the rebellion just made it more clear that he was going to need to help to free slaves, even if that means what he is fighting for helps him. Overall John Brown should be viewed an active person who thought that slavery was another damper on the country.
April 30th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
I think that it really depends on the point of view of the person. Some people honestly believe that they are terrorist and have a screwed up idea. While others are fully behind them and what they are all about. I think that the time that John Brown lived they saw him as more of a traitor than a hero, but if he lived in todays society he would be seen as a hero. He would only be seen as a traitor because the majority of the people didnt believe in what he stood up for and they only follow the crowd. Today on the other hand people see more of their own opinion and not just what other people think about it
May 27th, 2009 at 2:01 am
I believe John Brown should be considered a hero over a traitor because of the cause behind the rebellion. Inciting a rebellion to try and end slavery is a good cause. It says in the constitution liberty and justice for all, and clearly forcing people to be slaves is not liberty for all. Another thing is that you couldn’t really call John Brown a “traitor to our nation” because at the time America was a nation divided, almost two separate nations. Although John Brown did take part in the murder of five people, the times were much different than now and even today he wouldn’t be looked at as a traitor for that, just a criminal, which is not the same thing. Even still he would be a criminal for a just cause. Taking a look back through history, often times figures of the past that are considered heroes today were probably considered a traitor or a criminal by somebody at some point in time. Essentially what I believe is that any time somebody is taking action in the name of a truly good cause they should be considered somewhat of a hero.